AB v Social Work England

On an appeal from a professional disciplinary panel, the High Court may review whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. It should respect the panel’s advantage in hearing witnesses and its expertise in assessing professional standards and public confidence. Professional obligations may apply to communications made outside a practitioner’s formal role, including private communications with professional colleagues. Qualified rights of privacy and freedom of expression do not prevent disciplinary scrutiny of communications that breach professional standards. Where serious findings are undermined by inadequate reasoning, particularly concerning hearsay evidence, the appropriate remedy may be to quash those findings and remit them to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant appealed against a decision of Social Work England adjudicators. The panel found misconduct in relation to communications with a social-work colleague, handling confidential information, inaccurate recording of child-protection visits, safeguarding failures and dishonesty. It imposed a removal order and found current impairment of fitness to practise.

Social Work England conceded that the reasoning concerning allegations 3 to 5 was inadequately detailed, especially in relation to hearsay evidence, and invited the court to quash those findings and the related removal and impairment decisions. The central issues were whether the findings on allegations 1 and 2 were legally sustainable and what remedy should follow in relation to allegations 3 to 5.

1. Outcome. The appeal was dismissed in relation to allegations 1 and 2. The findings on allegations 3, 4 and 5, the removal decision and the finding of current impairment were quashed, and those allegations were remitted to a differently constituted panel.
2. Under paragraph 16(1)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, the central question was whether the panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. In reviewing factual findings, the court must take account of the panel’s opportunity to see and hear witnesses, its professional expertise and its informed assessment of the standards expected of social workers and the effect of misconduct on public confidence.
3. The panel was entitled to find that the applicant’s communications with Ms Higgins amounted to misconduct. The fact that the communications were sent from a personal account and outside the applicant’s professional role did not remove the obligation to comply with appropriate professional standards. The communications were numerous, insulting, threatening and contained serious unsupported allegations. No question of legal privilege arose, and privacy and freedom of expression were qualified rights.
4. The panel gave clear and cogent reasons for rejecting the explanations for retaining and disclosing confidential safeguarding material and accessing the records of the applicant’s son without a legitimate professional reason. Those conclusions were within the range of reasonable decisions open to the panel and were based on proper consideration of the evidence.
5. The reasoning on allegations 3 to 5 was inadequately detailed in relation to serious allegations, including dishonesty, and the evaluation of hearsay evidence. In light of the concession and the applicant’s proposed further evidence, those matters should be reconsidered in their entirety by a differently constituted panel.
6. The interim suspension was intended to maintain the status quo pending outstanding disciplinary proceedings. There was no power to appeal an interim order made at the same time as a final order under paragraph 16(1)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018.

• Social Work England adjudicators: found the allegations proved, found current impairment in relation to allegations 2 to 5, and imposed a removal order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal concerning allegations 1 and 2, and remitted allegations 3, 4 and 5 to a differently constituted panel.