SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v DELLA COWDRY

Extension of an interim suspension order requires the regulator to establish that continuation is necessary for public protection or in the practitioner’s best interests, and to justify the duration sought. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of potential harm, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. A remote hearing may be appropriate where notice and access arrangements preserve fairness and open justice. Where serious allegations create a continuing high risk to service users, that public protection interest may outweigh assumed prejudice from interim suspension.

Social Work England applied under Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a five-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed by adjudicators and previously extended by the High Court. The defendant did not attend or appear by representation. The application concerned whether the court could proceed in her absence, whether a remote hearing was appropriate, and whether continuation of the suspension until 19 August 2022 was necessary despite delay in the substantive proceedings.

1. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence. Papers had been served by signed-for post and email, and there was no unfairness or injustice in proceeding. The remote hearing was appropriate. Remote access could assist participation, and open justice was preserved through publication of the hearing details and arrangements for observation. The court applied the approach in O’Donnell [2022] EWHC 61 (Admin).
2. The onus lay on Social Work England to establish that continuation of the interim suspension was necessary for public protection or in the best interests of the practitioner, and to justify the period of extension. The relevant factors, identified in Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, included the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of potential harm to the public, the reasons why the regulatory process remained incomplete, and prejudice to the defendant.
3. The allegations were extremely serious and wide-ranging. They included borrowing money from a vulnerable service user, supplying class A drugs, serious professional-boundary breaches, abuse of a vulnerable service user, and drug-related criminal offending. The most recent review identified a high risk of repetition. The court agreed that continuing suspension was necessary to protect service users, the wider public interest and public confidence.
4. The substantive case had been delayed after a five-day hearing was vacated because the panel considered it unfair to proceed in the defendant’s absence. The acknowledged service oversight was relevant in her favour, but did not outweigh the imperative of public protection. Although prejudice from continued suspension was assumed, it was plainly outweighed by the public interest. The requested extension provided necessary headroom beyond the listed substantive hearing.
5. The order was made in the terms sought. If the substantive proceedings concluded earlier, the interim order would fall away.