Social Work England v Deanna Gregory

When a regulator seeks to extend an interim suspension order, the court applies the same criteria as the regulator when imposing the order. The regulator must satisfy the court that the allegations, viewed without determining their truth, justify continuation. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, progress towards resolving the substantive case and prejudice to the practitioner. The court does not determine primary facts or the merits. An extension may be granted where the public protection need outweighs the practitioner’s prejudice. Limited restrictions on access to sensitive health information may also be justified where they preserve the substance of open justice.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on a registered social worker under Schedule 2 to the Social Worker Regulations 2018. The order was due to expire after 18 months. The regulator relied on serious concerns arising from the defendant’s former employment and her lack of engagement with the investigations.

The defendant had notice of the hearing but did not attend or participate. The court also considered an application under CPR 5.4C to restrict access to sensitive personal health information in the court file. The issues were whether the hearing should proceed in the defendant’s absence, whether the access restriction was appropriate, and whether the interim order should be extended.

1. Proceeding in absence. The defendant had been served at an alternative address and by email. In light of her non-engagement with the proceedings and absence of any indication that she wished to participate, it was fair to proceed in her absence under CPR 6.14 principles.
2. Restriction of court-file access. Having considered General Medical Council v Hughes [2024] EWHC 3176 (Admin), the court ordered that applications for access to documents other than the claim form, judgment or order should be made on 14 days’ notice. The order was a limited intrusion into open justice and was justified by the sensitive health information in the file and the absence of an evident countervailing public interest.
3. Extension criteria. Applying General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the criteria for extending an interim order are the same as those for imposing one. Relevant factors include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner.
4. The regulator bears the burden of satisfying the court. The court does not make primary findings of fact or determine the merits. It asks whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justify prolongation of the order.
5. The allegations were serious, supported by cogent evidence, related to fundamental aspects of social work practice and presented an unacceptable risk of avoidable harm to children and their families if unrestricted practice resumed. The regulator had taken significant steps to progress the case, and the defendant’s prejudice was outweighed by the need for public protection.
6. The interim suspension order was extended to 30 November 2026.