Social Work England v Kimberley-Ann Rose

On an application to extend an interim professional regulatory order, the court applies the same necessity criteria applicable when the order was first made. The regulator bears the burden of showing that continuation is necessary for public protection, public confidence or the practitioner’s interests, including as to the order’s conditions and duration.

The court may consider the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner. It does not determine primary facts or the merits, except that it may consider whether the case is clearly without merit. An interim order remains a protective measure while the substantive process proceeds. Proportionality requires the practitioner’s prejudice to be weighed against the public interest.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim conditions of practice order imposed on Kimberley-Ann Rose for its maximum period of 18 months.

The order was due to expire while serious allegations concerning Ms Rose’s competence and capability remained unresolved. She opposed the extension, relying on delay, prejudice, the absence of current evidence of risk and the impact on her ability to work as a social worker. The central issue was whether continuation of the order, including its proposed 12-month duration, remained necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended for 12 months, to 30 April 2024.
2. The court followed the approach identified by the Court of Appeal in GMC v Hiew [2006] EWCA Civ 369 at §§28 and 31–33. The same criteria apply to an extension as to the making of the original interim order: necessity for the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence and, where relevant, the practitioner’s own interests.
3. In deciding necessity, the court may consider the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons why the case remains unresolved and prejudice to the practitioner. Social Work England bore the onus of establishing necessity, including the nature and duration of the proposed extension.
4. The court was not determining primary facts or expressing a view on the merits. It could, however, consider whether the case was clearly without merit. The allegations were serious, the recent Review Panel had found a case to answer based on apparently credible and cogent information, and the procedural progress was adequately explained.
5. The order was protective and interim. It was appropriate for the concerns to be determined at a substantive hearing with due process. The court was not required to direct that the investigation or regulatory process conclude immediately.
6. Although the proceedings placed Ms Rose in limbo and caused professional prejudice, that prejudice was decisively outweighed by the public protection and public confidence justifications. A 12-month extension was necessary and proportionate because a hearing within nine months was hoped for but foreseeable contingencies could prevent that timetable.