Social Work England v Peter Charles Fletcher

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator establishes that the extension is necessary for public protection, including maintaining public confidence. The court must assess risk, public protection and proportionality, rather than determine disputed allegations or make findings of fact. The application must be decided on its merits even where it is not contested but has not been agreed by consent. The practitioner’s prejudice, delay and procedural progress are relevant to proportionality. A direction requiring notice of an application by a non-party for access to sensitive documents may be made where it is necessary, justified and proportionate in the particular circumstances.

Social Work England applied for a further 14-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on 19 February 2021 and previously extended on 2 August 2022 and 4 April 2023. The allegations concerned wide-ranging practice-based failings and possible health-related impairment of fitness to practise. The defendant had been served, did not attend, and did not contest the application, but the court was not asked to make a consent order.

The application also sought a direction requiring the parties to receive at least 14 days’ notice of any non-party application under CPR 5.4C(2) for documents other than the claim form, judgment or order. The central questions were whether the interim order remained necessary and proportionate, and whether the notification direction was justified having regard to sensitive health material.

1. Extension granted. The interim suspension order was extended for 14 months, until 15 December 2024, under Schedule 2 paragraph 14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018.
2. The court was not determining the allegations or making findings of fact. The allegations were relevant because, if established, they concerned fundamental aspects of social work practice and gave rise to a risk requiring public protection. The proper questions were risk, public protection and proportionality.
3. The application was addressed on its merits. The defendant’s position was neither agreement nor opposition, and there was no consent order. The court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed without adjournment or allowing the order to expire.
4. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 applied. Social Work England had explained the procedural progress, including steps taken to obtain evidence and address an application for voluntary removal from the register. The defendant’s lack of intention to resume practice reduced, but did not eliminate, the prejudice caused by continued suspension and delay. Those considerations yielded to the public protection imperatives in the circumstances. The order did not require closer interim monitoring by the court.
5. The court granted the requested notification direction under CPR 5.4C. Permission was required for a non-party to obtain documents other than the claim form, judgment or order, and access to those documents was not otherwise being restricted under CPR 5.4C(4). In light of the health allegation and medical report before the court, advance notice was necessary, justified and proportionate.
6. The interim 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.

This was a first-instance application in the Administrative Court. The judgment records earlier extensions of the interim order by this Court on 2 August 2022 and 4 April 2023.