Social Work England v Janette Lynne O'Donnell

An interim suspension order may be extended only where the regulator establishes that continuation is necessary and proportionate. The court must consider protection of the public, the wider public interest, the practitioner’s best interests, available alternatives such as conditions of registration, and the prejudice or hardship caused by continued suspension. The regulator bears the burden of establishing both the necessity of the extension and the necessity and proportionality of its duration. Serious allegations, a real risk of harm, medical evidence, the progress and timing of the substantive proceedings, and the absence of workable interim conditions may justify continuation pending a final hearing.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a six-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant, a social worker. The order had been maintained through successive reviews and previous extensions by the court. The underlying regulatory case concerned alleged alcohol-related conduct, health conditions, impairment of fitness to practise and a subsequent brain haemorrhage. The defendant did not attend or respond, but the court was satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to notify her and that it was in the interests of justice to determine the application.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for six months to 15 July 2022.
2. The governing test, drawn from General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, required the court to determine whether continuation was necessary for protection of the public, in the wider public interest, and/or in the practitioner’s best interests. Available alternatives, including conditions of registration, had to be considered. The seriousness of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay, and prejudice or hardship to the practitioner were relevant matters.
3. The burden rested on Social Work England to establish that both the extension and its duration were necessary and proportionate. The court had to reach its own view afresh, although it could take account of the detailed reasoning of the reviewing adjudicators.
4. The allegations involved unmanaged health conditions potentially affecting safe practice. On the material before the court, permitting a return to practice created a real risk of harm, even with conditions. Continued suspension also served the wider public interest by maintaining confidence in the social work profession and was accepted as being in the defendant’s best interests in light of her medical history and alcohol-related difficulties.
5. There were no realistic, workable or proportionate interim conditions. Although continued suspension caused prejudice and hardship, those consequences were decisively outweighed by the considerations favouring continuation. The imminent final-hearing window and the satisfactory progress of the regulatory case justified the six-month duration. The order included liberty to apply for the defendant’s protection.