Social Work England v Asheba Falasha Golding

An interim conditions of practice order may be extended where continuation is necessary and proportionate for public protection and public confidence. The court should select a period sufficient to cover the regulatory proceedings through final hearing and disposal, while allowing the order to fall away if no final hearing is required. Personal, financial and wellbeing prejudice, and delay, must be weighed against public protection, public confidence, and the regulator’s need to progress the case within practical and resource constraints. A less intrusive conditions order, which permits supervised practice, may materially affect the proportionality assessment.

Social Work England sought a 12-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order imposed on the defendant on 11 November 2021 for the maximum initial period of 18 months. The order was due to expire on 10 May 2023. The defendant participated in the proceedings and did not oppose continuation, but sought a six-month rather than a 12-month extension.

The underlying allegations concerned failures in casework management, record-keeping, assessments and interventions, and an alleged dishonest representation that a placement review had been completed. The investigation remained in progress, with the defendant’s response to the Case Investigation Report due on 5 May 2023. The central issue was whether continuation was necessary and proportionate and, if so, the appropriate duration.

1. Extension granted. Pursuant to §14 of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, the interim conditions of practice order was extended for 12 months, until 9 May 2024. There was no order as to costs.
2. The court accepted that the proceedings and order had caused real financial and wellbeing prejudice to the defendant. There had also been delays, including delays in obtaining documents from the former local authority. Those matters did not, however, make a shorter extension appropriate. The regulator had a substantial caseload and pandemic-related backlog, the local authority’s delays were not directly attributable to the regulator, and escalation steps had been taken when documents were outstanding.
3. The order was a less intrusive measure than interim suspension. It enabled the defendant to continue working as a supervised locum social worker, subject to conditions. That practical ability to work, together with the recent relaxation of supervision and reporting requirements, materially assisted the proportionality assessment.
4. The court did not determine the truth or merits of the underlying allegations. Those issues were for the regulatory process. The immediate risk nevertheless made continuation of the order necessary in its current form.
5. The appropriate duration was a period sufficient to cover the underlying proceedings through any final hearing and final disposal. A shorter order was not justified merely to signal expedition, since supervision of the regulator’s final-hearing listings and Case Examiner workload was not the court’s function. The defendant’s prejudice was decisively outweighed by public protection, public confidence, and the public interest in the regulator progressing the case appropriately, with such expedition as was reasonable and achievable in light of practical and resource constraints.