Social Work England v Ndoda Nathaniel Masinga

An interim suspension order may be extended only where the court is satisfied that the extension, the nature of the order and its duration are necessary and proportionate for public protection, including public confidence. The court must assess the real-world context, including regulatory caseloads and resourcing, while giving substantial weight to delay, the historic nature of the allegations and prejudice to the practitioner. Generic evidence about institutional pressures may be relevant, but it does not justify an extension of whatever length is sought. A further application is required where continuation beyond the period granted would need fresh justification.

Social Work England sought a further extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant, a social worker, pending fitness-to-practise proceedings. The order had originated in April 2021 and had previously been extended by the court for 12 months. The defendant opposed a further lengthy extension, relying on the historic nature of the allegations, delay and the resulting prejudice to his employment.

The central issues were whether continuation of the interim suspension order remained necessary for public protection, including public confidence, and what duration of any further extension was justified.

1. Extension granted in part. The court extended the interim suspension order for 10 months, until 24 August 2024, rather than the 14 months sought. The order was to be reviewed under Schedule 2 Part 4 Paragraph 14(1) of the Social Workers Regulations 2018. There was no order as to costs.
2. The court’s function was to assess risk and the necessity of interim protection, not to determine factual disputes or substantive fitness-to-practise issues. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 applied. The court had to be satisfied that the extension, the nature of the order being extended and its duration were each necessary in the interests of public protection, including public confidence.
3. The allegations raised concerns about alleged domestic violence, possible emotional abuse, concealment of relevant events and the defendant’s insight, including behavioural and attitudinal concerns. Those matters engaged protection of service users, probity and public confidence.
4. The public-interest imperatives outweighed the defendant’s employment difficulties and prejudice. However, delay and the passage of time were powerful considerations. The allegations were historic, the order dated from April 2021, and the court had previously expected the regulatory process to be completed within a further 12 months.
5. Evidence concerning increased referrals, inherited cases, pandemic effects, prioritisation by risk and age, hearing capacity and additional resources was appropriate because the court needed to understand the wider operational context. It did not justify the full period sought. A further application, with a full explanation, would be necessary if continuation beyond 24 August 2024 were required.
6. A private hearing was unnecessary. No prospective restriction on access to documents under CPR 5.4C was justified as necessary or proportionate.

First-instance decision of the High Court (Administrative Court). The judgment does not state any appeal from an earlier judicial decision.