Social Work England v Calvin Stuart George

An interim conditions of practice order may be extended where the regulator demonstrates that the nature and duration of the extension are necessary and proportionate for public protection and the public interest. The court must assess risk, not determine the merits of the underlying allegations. It may proceed in the respondent’s absence where the respondent has been served, had a fair opportunity to participate, and the interests of justice favour proceeding. Any prejudice to the respondent must be weighed against the public interest in maintaining effective interim protection.

Social Work England sought a 12-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order imposed on the defendant in November 2021. The order concerned serious allegations arising from his work as the registered manager of a children’s care home, including alleged safeguarding failures and failures to record incidents or protect a child from significant risk of harm.

The defendant had not attended the original hearing or subsequent reviews. He was served with the claim documents and indicated by text that he would not attend, but did not clearly consent to the extension. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in his absence and whether the extension, its conditions and its duration were necessary and proportionate.

1. Disposition. The claim was granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended for 12 months, to 14 May 2024, pursuant to Schedule 2 §14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018. There was no order as to costs.
2. The court was satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed in the defendant’s absence. He had been served, had an opportunity to make written representations and could have attended the remote hearing. His communications did not amount to sufficiently clear consent, but there was no specific point raised in opposition to the extension. The interests of justice favoured proceeding rather than adjourning or allowing the order to expire.
3. The court had to satisfy itself that the extension, the nature of the order and its duration were justified as necessary. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 applied.
4. The underlying matters remained allegations. The court’s function was not to determine their merits or whether the defendant had a good answer. It had to assess risk in the context of public protection and the public interest. The allegations, if proved, involved serious safeguarding failures, risk to service users, serious breaches of public trust and damage to confidence in the profession.
5. The order was less intrusive than interim suspension and was intended to enable continued work subject to relevant conditions. Although prejudice to the defendant was assumed, it was not evidenced in detail. The regulator was taking appropriate steps to progress the underlying proceedings, and the public interest imperatives decisively outweighed the prejudice. A 12-month extension was necessary and proportionate given the anticipated timetable for completion.