SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v VERONICA SUSAN RALPH

An interim suspension order may be extended only where the extension, the order itself and its duration are necessary for public protection or in the public interest. The court should assess the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons for delay in concluding the substantive proceedings and the prejudice to the practitioner. The court is not required to determine the allegations or make findings of fact at the interim stage.

Social Work England applied under the Social Workers Regulations 2018, Schedule 2 paragraph 14, to extend for 12 months an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant. The defendant had been notified but did not appear or participate. The application concerned allegations arising from her work with vulnerable young people, the progress of the regulatory proceedings and the continuing risk to service users and colleagues.

1. The application was appropriately heard in the defendant’s absence. She had been properly notified, participation was voluntary, and the arrangements for the remote hearing satisfied the requirements of open justice.
2. The applicable test was necessity for the protection of the public or in the public interest. Necessity applied both to the extension and nature of the interim order and to its duration. In applying that test, the court had regard to the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to the public, the reasons why the case had not concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner, as explained in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.
3. The court’s task was not to determine the allegations or make findings of fact. It was sufficient to assess whether continuation of the interim protective measure was necessary on the material before the court.
4. The allegations were serious and wide-ranging. They concerned alleged bullying, intimidation, disrespectful and inconsistent conduct, including assumptions linked to race, ethnicity and religious belief, in work involving vulnerable service users. The evidence indicated an identifiable risk of emotional and physical harm, a risk of repetition and no developed understanding or remedial engagement by the defendant.
5. The proceedings had progressed through referral, case examination and case management. Witness evidence was being prepared, disclosure was anticipated and a hearing window had been identified. A 12-month period provided reasonable headroom for procedural delay. The prejudice caused by continued inability to practise was recognised, but was outweighed by the public protection and public interest considerations.

The interim suspension order was extended for 12 months, to 24 May 2023.

The judgment determined a first-instance regulatory application to extend an interim suspension order originally imposed on 26 November 2020. The order was extended to 24 May 2023.