Social Work England v Robert John Wardale

When extending an interim conditions of practice order, the court must be satisfied that the order is necessary and proportionate in respect of its existence, terms and duration. The assessment must protect the public and maintain public confidence, while taking account of prejudice to the professional and the progress of the underlying regulatory case. A requested extension may be reduced where delay has occurred and the proposed period is excessive. The court may permit a further extension only if the regulatory body returns with evidence that it remains reasonably necessary and proportionate.

Social Work England applied to extend an Interim Conditions of Practice Order imposed by its adjudicators on 14 June 2021. The maximum initial period was 18 months. The order concerned alleged failures in child-safeguarding visits and recording, including an allegation of dishonesty which had not yet been determined.

The respondent engaged by written representations. He relied on compliance with the order, positive employment reports, training and the impact on his reputation, work and finances. Social Work England relied on investigative delay, continuing regulatory proceedings and the time required for case examination and any hearing.

The central issue was whether, and for how long, continuation of the order remained necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted in part. The Interim Conditions of Practice Order was extended for eight months, to 12 August 2023. The requested 12-month extension was excessive in the circumstances.
2. Having regard to the overarching objective in section 37 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and the principles in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the applicant had established the necessity and proportionality of the fact of the order, its nature and its duration, but only for eight months.
3. The court accepted the review panel’s assessment that continuation remained necessary for public protection and public confidence. The underlying fact-finding process had not concluded, including the allegation of dishonesty, which the court did not determine.
4. In assessing proportionality and prejudice, the court considered the respondent’s compliance, positive work reports and training, the restrictions’ practical effect, the continuing regulatory risk and the delay in progressing the case. The delay meant that the case should now proceed to conclusion with all reasonably achievable promptness.
5. The order would fall away if the case concluded earlier. Any future review panel was expected to reconsider whether the conditions should be lifted or relaxed. A further extension could be sought only by returning to the court and demonstrating that it was necessary in the circumstances then prevailing.

There was no order as to costs.