SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v ONYEKACHI ONWU

An interim suspension order may be extended where the applicant proves that continuation is necessary for public protection and that the proposed duration is necessary and proportionate.

The court should consider the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the potential harm, the reasons for delay in concluding the proceedings, and the prejudice to the person suspended. Substantial delay does not by itself remove the risks justifying interim suspension, although the continuing prejudice must be kept firmly in view.

Social Work England applied under Schedule 2 paragraph 14(2)(3) of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a further 12-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed against the defendant. The order had originally been made by an adjudicators’ panel and had previously been extended by the Administrative Court.

The defendant did not attend or participate. The application arose while police investigations into serious alleged dishonesty, fraud and related conduct remained outstanding. The central issues were whether continuation was necessary for public protection and whether a further 12-month period was necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was granted and the interim suspension order was extended for 12 months, to 15 March 2023.

2. The applicant bore the onus of showing that the extension was necessary for public protection and that the duration sought was necessary and proportionate. Applying Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the potential harm to the public, the reasons why the process had not concluded, and the prejudice to the defendant.

3. The allegations involved an apparent repeated pattern of dishonesty affecting post, credit cards and bank accounts, with possible implications for fraud and money laundering. The alleged conduct was particularly serious in the context of social work, where practitioners may have access to vulnerable service users’ homes, personal information, property and finances.

4. The delay was substantial, but it resulted from the ongoing police investigations and did not diminish the identified risks. The applicant had acted properly in awaiting the conclusion of the criminal process before progressing its own investigation.

5. There was no indication of concrete prejudice to the defendant. Any prejudice arising from continuation of the interim order was plainly outweighed by the strong public interest in protecting service users, maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards. Conditions of practice would not have been workable or sufficient in the circumstances.