Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England

A statutory review of a professional disciplinary order considers the practitioner’s current fitness to practise and whether the order remains necessary. It does not reopen the original findings of fact or provide a second appeal against the original decision.

On an appeal limited to review, the High Court should accord considerable weight to the specialist tribunal’s evaluative assessment. Intervention is justified where there is an error of principle or the decision falls outside the range of decisions reasonably open to the tribunal.

Protection of the public, public confidence and proper professional standards remain central. The adverse effect of conditions on employment prospects does not, by itself, make continuation of conditions disproportionate.

The appellant’s fitness to practise as a social worker had been found impaired by an HCPC panel in 2019, which imposed a conditions of practice order. An appeal against that original decision was dismissed by consent.

Following the transfer of regulatory functions to Social Work England, review panels continued the conditions of practice order in February and November 2022. Both panels found that the appellant had made insufficient progress in remediation and insight, and that unrestricted practice would present risks to the public and undermine confidence in the profession.

The appellant appealed both review decisions. She sought to challenge the original findings and contended that continuation of the order was disproportionate. The issues were whether the second appeal was out of time, whether a review panel could reopen the original findings, and whether the review decisions were wrong.

1. Second appeal. The appeal against the February 2022 review decision was filed outside the 28-day statutory period. The court had only a narrow jurisdiction to extend time where necessary to preserve the essence of the right of appeal. No exceptional circumstances were established. The second appeal was therefore struck out, or alternatively dismissed as out of time.
2. Review jurisdiction. The purpose of a review under Sch 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 was to determine whether the social worker’s fitness to practise remained impaired and whether the order should remain in force. It was not an appeal or a vehicle for reopening the original findings of fact. The appellant could maintain her denial of the misconduct, but that denial and any want of candour could be relevant to current insight and risk of repetition. Ground 1 therefore failed.
3. Appellate approach. The appeals were limited to a review of the decisions below. Considerable weight was due to the specialist review panels’ evaluative judgments concerning remediation, insight, risk and proportionality. The court could intervene only for an error of principle or where the decision was outside the range of decisions reasonably open to the panel.
4. Continuation of conditions. Both review panels were entitled to find that the appellant’s failings were remediable but that there was insufficient evidence of significant remediation, full insight or safe unrestricted practice. They were entitled to conclude that conditions were necessary to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards. The effect on employment prospects was relevant but did not outweigh those considerations. A conditions of practice order was distinct from suspension and was a proportionate means of facilitating remediation while protecting the public.
5. The second and third appeals were dismissed.

• HCPC Conduct and Competence Panel: on 26 June 2019 found misconduct, impaired fitness to practise and imposed a conditions of practice order.
• High Court: the appellant’s first appeal against the 2019 decision was dismissed by consent on 15 March 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeals against the February and November 2022 review decisions were dismissed.