Orla Maire Gleeson v Social Work England

Private conduct may amount to professional misconduct where it is sufficiently serious and has a sufficient impact on public confidence in the individual or profession. Regulatory panels must, however, remain within the particulars of the allegations and give proper regard to delay and lack of specificity. Findings unsupported by reliable evidence, or based on events not fairly identified as part of an allegation, may be set aside on appeal. Denial of misconduct cannot itself justify increased sanction, although the registrant’s attitude to the allegations may be relevant to insight and risk of repetition. Sanction guidance must be applied flexibly and in the context of the whole case.

A social worker appealed against a fitness to practise panel’s findings of misconduct, impairment and removal from the register. The allegations concerned conduct in private relationships with Person A and Person B, together with inappropriate social media postings.

The panel found certain emotional-abuse allegations concerning Person A proved, two physical-assault allegations concerning Person B proved, and the social-media allegation proved. The central issues were whether the Person A findings were adequately particularised and supported by evidence, whether a late amendment concerning Person B was unfair, whether private conduct could constitute serious professional misconduct, and whether the panel wrongly relied on denial when assessing insight and sanction.

1. Disposition. The findings of misconduct concerning Person A were procedurally unfair and wrong and were to be quashed, subject to further submissions on the precise consequential disposal. The findings concerning Person B and the social-media postings stood at this stage. Further submissions were required on impairment, sanction and whether remittal or another disposal was appropriate.
2. An allegation of professional misconduct must be particularised sufficiently to give the registrant a fair opportunity to prepare a defence. Where precision is constrained by the nature of the allegation, the tribunal must nevertheless consider the prejudice caused by delay and lack of specificity. The panel was not entitled to rely on the February 2015 incident in support of the general aggressive-emotional-abuse allegation because that event had not been identified for that purpose and no amendment had been made. ([2008] EWHC 2896 (Admin); paras [55]-[65], [86]-[98].)
3. The panel’s finding that Person A had often been aggressive was unsupported once the October 2012 and February 2015 incidents were excluded. The January 2014 incident alone could not safely establish frequent abuse over several years. The related finding concerning the threat to kill also could not stand because the panel had relied on the invalid finding of frequent aggression and had not determined whether the statement was made seriously and with intent to cause fear. (Paras [89]-[98].)
4. Misconduct may arise from private conduct if it is sufficiently serious and sufficiently connected with the profession through its effect on public confidence. Social workers are not required to be paragons of virtue in every private relationship, and panels must identify conduct crossing the line into disgraceful conduct affecting professional confidence. ([2000] 1 AC 311; [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin); [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin); paras [99]-[108].)
5. The amendment of the Person B allegation from pushing Person B down the stairs to attempting to push her down the stairs was fair. The statement of case had always made clear that the allegation concerned an unsuccessful attempt prevented by Person B’s grip on the banister, and Ms Gleeson’s case had always been a complete denial. ([2017] EWCA Civ 319; paras [110]-[122].)
6. The panel was entitled to accept Person B’s evidence after considering the police report, the competing accounts, inconsistencies and evidence of intoxication. The court would not interfere with those primary factual findings. (Paras [123]-[138].)
7. Denial of misconduct is not itself a reason to increase sanction. It may, however, make it more difficult for a registrant to demonstrate insight and that repetition is unlikely. The panel was entitled to consider the evidence and absence of evidence concerning insight without requiring an admission of guilt. Sanction guidance should not be applied so inflexibly that removal becomes effectively inevitable in a case otherwise suitable for suspension. ([2021] EWHC 370 (Admin); paras [139]-[148].)

The appeal was brought as of right to the High Court under Schedule 2 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 against the final order made by the fitness to practise panel. The High Court quashed the findings concerning Person A, while leaving the Person B and social-media findings standing provisionally and reserving consequential disposal.