Social Work England v Emma Louise Dean

When extending an interim suspension order, the court must assess necessity and proportionality by reference to public protection, the public interest and public confidence. A registrant’s stated intention never to practise, retirement, or desire to leave the register does not itself remove the need for regulatory protection while disciplinary proceedings remain unresolved. The court should, however, supervise progress actively and avoid endorsing an unnecessarily lengthy extension. The court deciding an interim-order application cannot determine the substantive disciplinary allegations or decide an application for voluntary removal from the register.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Emma Louise Dean under the Social Workers Regulations 2018. The order was due to expire on 25 October 2023. Ms Dean sought removal from the register and said that she was medically retired, would not practise again, and was adversely affected by the continuing proceedings.

The application sought a further 18-month extension. The court considered the delay in progressing the substantive disciplinary proceedings, the regulatory consequences of allowing the order to expire, and the appropriate duration of any extension.

1. The application for an 18-month extension was refused. The court extended the interim suspension order for eight months, until the date specified in the formal order, and directed that it be reviewed under Schedule 2 Part 4 paragraph 14(1) of the Social Workers Regulations 2018.
2. The court’s function was confined to deciding whether continuation of the interim suspension order was necessary and, if so, for how long. It could not cancel registration, terminate the disciplinary proceedings, determine the substantive allegations, decide questions of health, or determine voluntary removal from the register.
3. Applying the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court held that allowing the order to expire would, in principle, restore a regulatory entitlement to practise. Social Work England had therefore discharged the burden of showing that continuation remained necessary for public protection, the public interest and public confidence.
4. The order itself did not cause the principal prejudice relied on by Ms Dean, because the prejudice arose from the continuing disciplinary proceedings and associated notices and papers. Nevertheless, the court was concerned by the passage of time and the lack of satisfactory progress. A much shorter extension was proportionate and provided appropriate judicial supervision, safeguard and incentive for speedy progress.
5. The court declined to halt the disciplinary proceedings. It observed that voluntary removal might prove appropriate and appeared, prima facie, to warrant speedy consideration, but that decision belonged to the separate regulatory mechanism.
6. An application by a non-party under CPR 5.4C(2) for permission to obtain documents or communications from the court records was to be made on at least 14 days’ notice to the parties. No order was made as to costs.