Social Work England v Susan Hunn

An interim conditions of practice order may be extended where the regulator demonstrates that continuation is necessary for public protection and the public interest, including public confidence. The court must assess the nature and duration of the restriction, the prejudice to the practitioner, the seriousness of the allegations, and the procedural timetable. Delay is a material concern, but may be justified by properly paused proceedings and a realistic contingency period. A respondent’s non-attendance does not prevent determination where the respondent was served and had a fair opportunity to make representations.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim conditions of practice order imposed on Susan Hunn in April 2021 and previously extended in October 2022. The proposed extension was for nine months, to 27 July 2024, pending a final hearing concerning allegations arising from events in 2019.

The defendant did not attend or participate. The court considered whether it was just to proceed, whether the statutory test for continuation was satisfied, whether the duration sought was justified despite delay, and whether directions were required concerning third-party access to documents containing medical information.

1. The application was granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended for nine months, until 27 July 2024. It was to be reviewed under Schedule 2 Part 4 paragraph 14(1) to the Social Workers Regulations 2018.

2. Under Schedule 2 paragraph 14 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, the court applied the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 at §§28 and 31–33. Social Work England had discharged the onus of demonstrating that the extension was necessary for protection of the public and the public interest, including public confidence.

3. The court was entitled to proceed in the defendant’s absence. She had been served with the claim documents, contacted by the judge’s clerk, and given an opportunity to make representations. Participation was a choice, and there was no sufficient reason to adjourn or allow the order to expire.

4. The allegations remained allegations and concerned serious matters involving fundamental aspects of social work practice. The prejudice caused by continuation was reduced because the order was a conditions of practice order rather than a suspension. That prejudice was decisively outweighed by the public interest. The substantial delay was a real concern, but the evidence showed that proceedings had properly been paused at times and that the proposed period allowed a sensible contingency before disclosure and the listed final hearing.

5. As to open justice, the court did not determine any third-party application under CPR 5.4C(2) and did not restrict access under CPR 5.4C(4). However, documents concerning medical matters justified directing that any such application for court documents or communications be made on at least 14 days’ notice to the parties. There was no order as to costs.