SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v HOPE WILSON

When extending an interim regulatory order, the applicant must establish necessity for the order, the particular form of order and the proposed duration. The court should consider the seriousness of the underlying allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm to the public, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continuation. An interim suspension order may replace an interim conditions of practice order where non-compliance means that the latter no longer provides sufficient public protection. The duration must remain necessary and proportionate, allowing the substantive proceedings to be concluded as soon as reasonably practicable.

Social Work England applied under Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Hope Wilson. The order was due to expire on 21 March 2022. Social Work England sought a nine-month extension, while Ms Wilson submitted that three months would be sufficient, principally because of the prejudice caused by her inability to obtain social work employment and the delay in concluding the investigation.

The order had originally been an interim conditions of practice order. Following alleged breaches of conditions requiring communication with relevant agencies, a review panel replaced it with an interim suspension order. The issue was whether continuation was necessary and, if so, what period was necessary and proportionate.

1. Necessity and proportionality. Social Work England bore the onus of demonstrating the necessity of continuing an interim order, the necessity of an interim suspension order rather than an interim conditions of practice order, and the necessity of the proposed duration. The relevant considerations included the gravity of the underlying case, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to the public and service users, the reasons for delay and the prejudice to the registrant. The principles in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 were applied.
2. The underlying allegations were sufficiently serious, and supported by cogent and reliable information, to justify interim protection. The court made no determination on the substantive merits. Public protection and the public interest outweighed the prejudice caused to Ms Wilson by continuation of the order.
3. The review panel was objectively justified in replacing the interim conditions of practice order with an interim suspension order. The relevant obligations were clear, the time limit for compliance was understood, and full compliance was important to public protection. In the circumstances, the conditions order no longer provided sufficient protection in the absence of confidence that it would be complied with.
4. The requested nine-month period was excessive. Disclosure had been reached and a final hearing might be arranged between May and July 2022. A six-month extension provided appropriate headroom while recognising the need for a final determination as soon as reasonably practicable.
5. The interim suspension order was extended until 20 September 2022.