Social Work England v Ntandoyakhe Ncube

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order imposed by a professional regulator, the court must assess the necessity and proportionality of the order’s fact, nature and duration. The assessment must reflect the statutory overarching objective and the interests of public protection and public confidence. Ongoing prejudice to the practitioner must be balanced against those interests. An extension may be justified where substantive proceedings are being progressed appropriately, the allegations are serious and wide-ranging, and lesser protective measures would not adequately protect the public.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent for the maximum period permitted by the Social Workers Regulations 2018. The order was due to expire while allegations of misconduct and/or lack of competence remained pending.

The allegations concerned social work practice in 2020, including professional boundaries, communication, risk identification, assessments, statutory meetings, home visits and contactability. The court considered the progress of the regulatory investigation, the continuing prejudice to the respondent, and whether further suspension was necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. Pursuant to paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, the court extended the interim suspension order for seven months, to 16 July 2023. There was no order as to costs.
2. The statutory assessment was informed by the overarching objective in section 37 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and the principles identified in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, particularly the need to establish the necessity and proportionality of the order’s fact, nature and duration.
3. The allegations were serious, wide-ranging and concerned fundamental elements of social work practice. They indicated a possible pattern of repeated behaviour. The respondent had shown some insight and undertaken further training, but the court accepted that even a high level of supervision would not adequately protect the public while the allegations awaited a substantive hearing.
4. The court accepted that the respondent suffered ongoing prejudice. That prejudice was outweighed by the imperatives of public protection and public confidence. Social Work England had provided a detailed account of the investigative steps completed and still required, and the case was being progressed appropriately towards disclosure and a final hearing.
5. The seven-month duration was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. It would not be in the public interest for the order to expire before the substantive proceedings could be determined.

First-instance determination of Social Work England’s application. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.