SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v BARBARA YANI DOH- NANI

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for public protection, the wider public interest or the professional’s interests. The court must assess both necessity and duration afresh, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continuation. Pending criminal proceedings may justify delaying regulatory investigation where the proceedings concern the same matters. A lengthy extension may nevertheless be proportionate where the criminal trial is imminent, substantial regulatory work will remain afterwards, and periodic reviews and early discharge provide safeguards.

Social Work England applied under the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for an 18-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed in 2019 and previously extended by the High Court for 12 months on 7 January 2021.

The order arose from serious allegations concerning alleged dishonesty, fraud, abuse of position and undisclosed financial interests arising from the defendant’s work as a social worker. Criminal proceedings were pending in the Crown Court, with trial listed for June 2022. The defendant had been notified but did not attend or engage. The central issues were whether further suspension was necessary and whether the requested 18-month duration was justified.

1. Necessity test. The court considered continuation and duration afresh. Applying the approach guided by General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, it assessed the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk to the public or public interest, the reasons why the case had not concluded, the prejudice to the defendant, and the other circumstances of the case.
2. Continuation justified. The allegations were extremely serious, sustained, repeated, involved substantial sums and arose directly from the defendant’s professional work. It was necessary and proportionate to maintain the order until the Crown Court had determined the criminal charges. The court made no finding on guilt or innocence.
3. Duration. The regulatory process was appropriately held pending the criminal proceedings because the matters substantially overlapped. Whether there was a conviction or acquittal, significant regulatory work was likely to remain, including disclosure, consideration by case examiners and, if required, a hearing. A further 12-month extension would create an unnecessary additional court hearing.
4. Safeguards and order. The order would fall away if no further regulatory action were required, or after expedited regulatory proceedings. Three-monthly reviews by adjudicators, together with the defendant’s right to seek review, supplied safeguards. The 18-month extension to 14 July 2023 was granted in the terms sought.

The judgment describes an interim suspension order imposed by the HCPC on 16 July 2019 and extended by the High Court for 12 months on 7 January 2021. The present application by Social Work England for a further extension was granted.