SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v JOANNE SMITH

An interim suspension order may be extended only where the regulator demonstrates that continuation is necessary and proportionate for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or in the best interests of the practitioner. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm to service users, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. The court must assess both the need for extension and its proposed duration. It does not determine the underlying allegations or make primary findings of fact at this stage.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2)(3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant by the HCPC and previously extended by the High Court. The application sought a further eight-month extension while regulatory proceedings concerning alleged misconduct, impairment, substance misuse, and barring decisions remained ongoing.

The defendant had disengaged from the review and investigation and was not represented. The central issue was whether continuation of the interim suspension order, and its proposed duration, remained necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for eight months, to 18 September 2022.
2. The court’s approach was guided by GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. Social Work England bore the onus of demonstrating that the extension and its duration were necessary and proportionate for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or in the defendant’s best interests.
3. Relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons why the investigation had not concluded, and the prejudice caused to the defendant by continuation of the order.
4. The court was not determining the underlying events or making primary findings of fact. It assessed the material only for the purpose of deciding whether interim protection remained necessary.
5. The allegations concerning practising under the influence of alcohol, bipolar affective disorder, substance use, and the defendant’s barring from work with children and adults established a sufficient protective and public-interest basis. The proceedings were ready for a substantive hearing, and the additional period provided reasonable headroom for possible delay. The continuation of the order was therefore necessary and proportionate.

The judgment describes an earlier interim suspension order imposed by the HCPC on 21 November 2019 and a previous eight-month extension granted by the High Court on 19 May 2021. This application concerned a further extension. No appellate history is stated.