Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England

A statutory review of a professional disciplinary order is concerned with the registrant’s current fitness to practise, not with reopening the original factual findings. A review panel may consider the registrant’s attitude to those findings when assessing insight, remediation and risk; denial of misconduct does not automatically preclude insight, but it may make insight harder to demonstrate. An appellate court should give substantial weight to a specialist tribunal’s evaluative assessment and intervene only for an error of principle or a decision outside the range of reasonable decisions. Where serious professional failings remain unaddressed and there is no meaningful evidence of remediation, continuation of a suspension order may be necessary and proportionate.

Adelaide Arkorful, a social worker, appealed under paragraph 16(1)(b) of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 against a review panel’s decision to extend her suspension order for six months. The original regulatory panel had found serious professional failings concerning record-keeping, child-in-need work and the safe provision of services to vulnerable children. Earlier appeals had been dismissed, including two appeals dismissed by Julian Knowles J on 8 February 2024.

The appellant challenged both the original findings of fact and the proportionality of the extended suspension. The central issues were whether the Fifth Review could revisit the original findings and whether the panel had lawfully assessed current impairment, insight, remediation and sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Fifth Review Panel’s decision to extend the suspension order for six months was neither wrong nor unjust because of procedural irregularity.
2. The statutory review was directed to current fitness to practise. It was not an appeal or an opportunity to reopen the original factual determination. The review panel had to consider what the registrant had achieved since the earlier order and whether fitness to practise remained impaired. The challenge to the original findings was also years out of time and had previously been abandoned by consent.
3. Denial of the underlying misconduct was not an absolute bar to insight. Nevertheless, the registrant’s attitude to the allegations was relevant, and continuing denial could make it more difficult to demonstrate understanding of the gravity of the failings and the risk of repetition. The Review Panel was entitled to conclude that the appellant had not demonstrated meaningful insight or remediation.
4. References supplied by the appellant carried reduced weight because they did not show that the referees understood the regulatory proceedings or the factual findings. Completion of general continuing professional development did not address the specific concerns, including record-keeping and the safe provision of services to vulnerable children.
5. The court applied the appellate restraint required for evaluative decisions of specialist professional tribunals. Intervention was justified only for an error of principle or where the evaluation fell outside the bounds of reasonable decision-making. No such error existed. Given the serious findings, the absence of relevant remediation and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in professional regulation, the suspension was necessary and proportionate.
6. The court directed that any application for costs be made in writing within seven days of hand-down, with written responses thereafter.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The present statutory appeal against the Fifth Review Panel’s decision was dismissed.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — On 8 February 2024, Julian Knowles J dismissed two earlier appeals concerning the First and Second Reviews.
• Original regulatory proceedings — On 26 June 2019, the Original Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order.