Social Work England v Rebecca Gardner

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for public protection and public confidence. The court must assess both necessity and proportionality, balancing the public interest against the prejudice caused by the order remaining in force.

Regulatory delay and limited resources may be relevant to the realistic duration of an extension, but they do not justify an indefinite or excessive order. The court should allow sufficient headroom for the regulatory process and any final hearing, while requiring the regulator to progress the case. The appropriate period is no more and no less than the circumstances reasonably require.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Rebecca Gardner by its adjudicators on 19 August 2022. The order was due to expire on 18 February 2024. Ms Gardner did not oppose an extension in principle, but sought a period of 12 months or less because of the continuing prejudice and uncertainty.

The court considered the progress of the regulatory investigation, the anticipated referral and preparation period, Social Work England’s available resources, and the need to protect the public and maintain public confidence. It also considered directions concerning open justice and non-party access to documents.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for 16 months, until 17 June 2025, rather than the 17 months sought.

2. Under Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018, and applying the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court had to decide whether continuation of the interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and in the public interest. The regulatory concerns were serious but remained allegations to be determined through the regulatory process.

3. The continuation of the order was necessary and proportionate. Public-interest imperatives decisively outweighed the prejudice to Ms Gardner, including the stress of the proceedings and the delay to any possible return to registered social work.

4. Duration required a separate assessment. The court took account of the progress already made, the anticipated decision of the Case Examiners, the further preparation required if the matter proceeded to a final hearing, and Social Work England’s limited capacity. Resource constraints could inform a realistic period of extension, but did not entitle the regulator to leave the case unresolved. The period had to be no more, but no less, than necessary and proportionate.

5. If there were no referral for a substantive hearing, or if the case were resolved earlier, the order would fall away sooner. If the case could not be finally resolved within the extension, Social Work England would need to return to the court and explain the steps taken by the relevant authorities and agencies, including in relation to the additional resources recognised as necessary.

6. In the particular circumstances, the court also directed that a non-party application under CPR 5.4C to obtain documents other than a statement of case, judgment or order should be made on at least 14 days’ notice, subject to liberty to apply to abridge the period. There was no order as to costs.