Social Work England v Charmaine Morgan

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator demonstrates that the extension is necessary for public protection, including maintaining public confidence. The court must assess the nature and duration of the proposed extension and balance any prejudice to the respondent against the public interest. A further period of headroom may be justified where it is a sensible precaution connected with the timing and effectiveness of a forthcoming substantive hearing.

Open justice remains the starting point for court orders and judgments. Restrictions on access to court records require necessity and proportionality. A prospective order requiring notice of applications for other documents is not justified merely because the material may contain health or personal information.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant on 12 April 2022 and continued by an order dated 30 November 2022. The defendant opposed the application but did not attend or appear. Earlier substantive proceedings had resulted in findings on three allegations and an 18-month suspension order. An appeal by the Professional Standards Authority was allowed, with one allegation remitted and the overall sanction to be reconsidered.

The court also considered whether to make a prospective order under CPR 5.4C(2) requiring notice before a non-party could apply for access to documents other than the claim form, judgment or order, and whether the draft order should provide for a statutory review of the interim order.

1. The application to extend the interim suspension order was granted. Social Work England had discharged the burden of demonstrating that a further 10 months, until 10 August 2024, was necessary for public protection, including public confidence. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 applied.

2. The court’s assessment properly began with the adverse substantive findings that remained undisturbed, together with the continuing case to answer on the remitted allegation. The fixed January 2024 hearing required adequate headroom. The evidence supported the conclusion that allowing the order to expire before that hearing would not sufficiently protect the public. Any prejudice to the defendant, including the effect on her studies and college course, was decisively outweighed by the public interest.

3. The application for a prospective notice order under CPR 5.4C(2) was refused. The open justice principle applied to the November 2022 order as a judicial act. The nature of the allegations and the defendant’s health conditions had already been identified in an order or substantive determination. The court was not satisfied that restricting prospective access was necessary or proportionate. Any later application for permission to obtain other documents could be dealt with at that stage.

4. The court did not determine conclusively whether its jurisdiction to extend the interim order under Schedule 2 extended to imposing a review. Even assuming that jurisdiction existed, it was not persuaded that a review provision should be included. Because the defendant had been led to believe that the proposed order would contain such a provision, she was granted liberty to apply.

5. The interim suspension order was extended until 10 August 2024. There was no order as to costs, and the defendant had liberty to apply to vary the order.

The judgment records earlier proceedings in the same litigation. A substantive determination dated 4 April 2022 imposed an 18-month suspension order. An appeal by the Professional Standards Authority was allowed by this Court’s order dated 30 November 2022, which left findings on Allegations (2) to (4) undisturbed, remitted Allegation (1), and directed reconsideration of the overall sanction.