Social Work England v Sara Farnsworth

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator proves that the extension, the nature of the order and its duration are necessary and proportionate for public protection, including maintaining public confidence. The court assesses risk rather than determining the underlying allegations. The respondent’s prejudice, delay and the regulator’s progress are relevant to proportionality. A hearing may proceed in the respondent’s absence where properly served and given a fair opportunity to make representations. Orders requiring notice of non-party applications for court documents should not be routine, but may be justified by the particular circumstances and the need for a precautionary approach.

Social Work England sought a 10-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on 11 August 2022 against Sara Farnsworth. The order would otherwise expire on 10 October 2023. The defendant did not attend or make oral representations, but had received the claim documents and had previously made written representations.

The court considered whether it was just to proceed in her absence, whether the extension was necessary and proportionate for public protection, whether a private hearing was required because the case concerned a child, and whether notice should be required for any non-party application under CPR 5.4C.

1. Extension granted. The court was satisfied that the 10-month extension of the interim suspension order until 9 August 2024 was necessary and proportionate in the interests of public protection, including public confidence. The order was made under Social Workers Regulations 2018, Schedule 2 paragraph 14.
2. The court applied the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The court was required to assess risk, not make findings of fact on the underlying allegations. The allegations were serious, supported by cogent evidence from reliable sources, and relevant to social-work safeguarding responsibilities.
3. The respondent’s inability to work, delay and passage of time constituted prejudice. Those matters were outweighed by the procedural progress of the investigation, the steps still required, the scheduled nine-day final hearing in June and July 2024, and the need for sensible headroom. The duration of the extension was therefore justified.
4. It was appropriate to proceed in the defendant’s absence. She had been served, had an opportunity to make written representations, and had the opportunity to attend the remote hearing. The possible indication that she consented did not amount to agreement because no signed consent order had been received.
5. No private hearing was necessary. Although orders requiring notice of non-party applications under CPR 5.4C should not be routine, a 14-day notice order was justified by the child-related circumstances, redactions and the need for an informed decision on any application.
6. The interim suspension order was extended to 9 August 2024 and made subject to review under Schedule 2 Part 4 paragraph 14(1) of Social Workers Regulations 2018. There was no order as to costs.