SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v LEE RATHBONE

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator establishes that continuation is necessary for public protection and serves the public interest, including maintaining confidence in the profession and regulator. The duration must be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. Serious allegations, reasonable investigative progress, delays beyond the regulator’s control and a realistic timetable for substantive resolution may justify an extension despite prejudice to the registrant. A hearing may proceed in the registrant’s absence where service is established and the registrant has had a fair opportunity to respond and attend.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed by its adjudicators. The order was due to expire on 28 January 2022, and a nine-month extension was sought because the investigation had been delayed, principally by the long-term sickness absence of a material witness.

The defendant had been served with the papers but did not respond or attend. The central issues were whether the extension was necessary in the public interest and for public protection, whether its duration was justified, and whether the court should proceed in the defendant’s absence.

1. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The court was satisfied that the papers had been delivered and signed for, that the defendant had an opportunity to respond and attend, and that it was in the interests of justice and the public interest to proceed. The remote-hearing arrangements and open-justice safeguards followed the approach described in O’Donnell [2022] EWHC 61 (Admin).
2. Applicable test. The test and the court’s approach were those summarised in Smith [2022] EWHC 93 (Admin). Under paragraph 14(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, the regulator had to show that the extension was necessary for public protection, was in the public interest, and that the proposed duration was necessary and proportionate.
3. Application of the test. Social Work England discharged that burden. The allegations involved repeated dishonesty, integrity and professional judgment, and were sufficiently serious to engage the protection of the public and public confidence in the profession and regulator. Reasonable investigative steps had been taken. The delays arose for reasons beyond the regulator’s control, and the evidence disclosed a realistic timetable for disclosure and a substantive hearing.
4. Although continuation of the order involved prejudice to the defendant, that prejudice was decisively outweighed by the public-interest need to protect the public from risk of harm pending substantive resolution, together with the public-confidence considerations. The nine-month extension to 27 October 2022 was necessary and proportionate.
5. The order was granted in the terms sought.