Social Work England v CW

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest. The court should consider the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons for delay or non-conclusion, and the prejudice to the practitioner. The court need not determine the allegations or make findings of fact at the interim stage. The period of extension should be no longer than necessary, but may include reasonable headroom to allow the substantive proceedings to conclude.

Social Work England applied under Sch 2 §14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a three-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant, a registered social worker. The order was due to expire on 24 October 2022.

The defendant did not attend the hearing or provide written submissions. The substantive regulatory proceedings had been adjourned to permit amendment of the allegations and had resumed shortly before the application. The allegations concerned dishonesty, risks to vulnerable children, non-disclosure, unassessed adults, adoption proceedings and non-engagement with authorities. The central issue was whether continuation of the interim suspension remained necessary, and for what period.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for three months, to 19 January 2023, with no order as to costs.
2. The governing question under Sch 2 §14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 was whether extension was necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest. The same necessity approach applied to the type of order and to its duration.
3. Relevant considerations included 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 if suspension continued. The court was not determining the allegations or making findings of fact at this interim stage.
4. Social Work England had discharged the burden of demonstrating necessity. The allegations raised serious concerns about professional judgment, dishonesty and risks to vulnerable children, together with non-disclosure and regulatory non-engagement. The proceedings had been properly progressed but had also been properly adjourned for amendment and consequential steps.
5. The latest update materially strengthened the case for continuation because the allegations had been found proven and the panel was deliberating on impairment. The likely conclusion of the substantive matter before expiry of the extension did not require a shorter period. Reasonable headroom was permissible, and the public-protection imperative, including public confidence, decisively outweighed the defendant’s prejudice.
6. As to open justice, anonymity was sufficient and less restrictive than a private hearing to protect the legitimate interests of children. Under Rule 39.2 and Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, reporting restrictions and redacted court documents were ordered, subject to liberty to apply.