Social Work England v Angelica Marisa Crawford

Continuation of an interim regulatory order requires necessity for the protection of the public or in the public interest. Necessity applies to whether an order should continue, the form of order, and its duration. The court must not determine disputed allegations at the interim stage. It should assess the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the potential risk, the progress and reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the practitioner. An interim conditions-of-practice order is unsuitable where conditions would be unworkable, unverifiable or insufficient to protect the public. Where serious allegations, including alleged dishonesty, remain unresolved and proceedings are progressing appropriately, interim suspension may remain necessary despite substantial professional and personal prejudice.

Social Work England applied for a 10-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on a social worker under the Social Workers Regulations 2018. The allegations, which were denied, included failures concerning child protection work, record-keeping and management instructions, misleading a manager, and a false pay claim allegedly involving dishonesty.

The Administrative Court considered whether the suspension should lapse, be replaced by interim conditions of practice, or continue for a shorter or longer period while the regulatory proceedings proceeded to a final hearing.

1. Extension granted. The court extended the interim suspension order to 23 August 2023. There was no order as to costs.
2. The governing test was necessity for the protection of the public or in the public interest. Necessity applied to every aspect of the decision: whether to extend the order, its form, and its duration. The court applied the approach explained in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons why the proceedings remained incomplete, and the prejudice to the practitioner.
3. The court did not determine the truth of the allegations. Its function was to decide the necessary interim holding position while the substantive proceedings continued, having regard both to public protection and confidence and to the practitioner’s interests.
4. The allegations were serious, concerned vulnerable service users and included alleged dishonesty. The evidence came from several apparently credible sources and established a prima facie case. The proceedings had made appropriate progress, with legitimate reasons for their continuation, including further evidence-gathering, disclosure and the need for a fair opportunity to respond.
5. Conditions of practice were not an adequate alternative. No workable conditions had been proposed, and the court could not devise conditions that would be workable, verifiable and sufficiently protective. Conditions would have required such stringent supervision that they would effectively amount to suspension.
6. The practitioner’s significant personal, financial and professional prejudice was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining protection and confidence pending the final hearing.