Social Work England v Floyd Edmund

When considering an application to extend an interim suspension order, the court should not determine the underlying facts. It may, however, take account of the evidence if it can clearly see that the case has little merit. The court must assess necessity and proportionality in the circumstances, including delay, the seriousness of the allegations, the impact of suspension, public protection, public interest and public confidence. A prolonged suspension need not always be treated as a choice between continuing a full suspension and imposing no restriction. Where appropriate, an interim conditions of practice order may provide a proportionate alternative.

Social Work England applied under Schedule 2, paragraph 14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Mr Edmund following an allegation that he had assaulted an adult family member during an unscheduled visit to a service user’s home.

Mr Edmund opposed the requested 18-month extension, relying on weaknesses in the evidence, delay in the investigation, and the serious economic and health consequences of being unable to work. The central issues were whether continuation of the order remained necessary and, if so, what period of extension was justified.

1. Evidence and scope of review. Applying the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court was not determining primary facts or conducting a supervisory review of a referral decision. It could nevertheless consider whether the case clearly had little merit. The evidence did not meet that threshold: there was an evidential basis, including photographic evidence, investigation reports and formal complaints by two witnesses.
2. Necessity and proportionality. The allegations were sufficiently evidentially based to engage public protection, public interest and public confidence concerns. However, close scrutiny was required of the proposed 18-month extension. The alleged incident was relatively straightforward, yet the two principal witnesses had still not been interviewed nearly two years after the referral. The court gave substantial weight to the serious financial and health effects of continued suspension.
3. Competing public interests. Public interest considerations include both protection of the public and the consequences of preventing a social worker from practising for extended periods during unacceptable delay. The court noted that prolonged suspension may prejudice both the individual and the public interest in reaching a fair and timely outcome. The possible role of an interim conditions of practice order, rather than a full suspension or no order, was identified but not finally determined.
4. Disposition. The court refused to allow the order to lapse because a short continuation remained necessary. It extended the interim suspension order for five months, until 22 September 2024, rather than the 18 months sought. The order was to be reviewed under Schedule 2, Part 4, paragraph 14(1) of the Social Workers Regulations 2018. There was no order as to costs.