Social Work England v Helen Spence

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for public protection, public confidence and the public interest, assessed through risk. The court must also examine whether the proposed duration is necessary and proportionate. A regulator’s acknowledged and unacceptable resource backlog does not automatically justify the longest requested extension. The court should assess the current evidence, delay, its causes, the impact on the practitioner, public risk and the realistic timetable. An expressed intention not to return to the profession may reduce practical detriment, but does not necessarily remove risk or the order’s utility.

Social Work England applied for a further extension of an interim suspension order under Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018. The order was due to expire on 3 May 2024. The regulator sought an 18-month extension because the disciplinary case could not presently be listed before April 2025.

The defendant opposed the extension, relying on the prolonged investigation, delay, adverse effects on her health and her stated intention not to return to social work. She did not attend and was not represented, but the court concluded that she had a full and fair opportunity to make written representations. The central issues were whether continuation remained necessary and, if so, what duration was necessary and proportionate.

1. Extension granted in part. Continuation of the interim suspension order remained necessary in the interests of public protection and the public interest, viewed from a risk-assessment perspective. The court made no findings about the underlying allegations.
2. The court accepted that the prolonged disciplinary process and continuation of the interim order caused significant detriment. The defendant’s stated intention never to return to social work, including in the context of her health evidence, did not remove the risk or the utility of the order.
3. The duration had to be necessary and proportionate. Social Work England’s lack of current capacity to list new hearings until April 2025, and its acknowledged unacceptable resource position, did not justify an 18-month extension to November 2025. The court considered the history of the case, progress of disclosure and witness statements, the causes of delay, the queue of other cases and the need for a realistic and acceptable timetable.
4. A 12-month extension to 2 May 2025 was proportionate. It was not a direction that the case should jump the queue. Any further application would require a clear and current explanation of steps taken to address the backlog and resource position.
5. The court directed that non-party applications under CPR 5.4C to obtain documents other than the claim form, judgment or order should ordinarily be made on 14 days’ notice, subject to liberty to apply to abridge that period. The interim 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.