Social Work England v Susan Okpani Evans

When a regulator seeks to extend an interim order, the court applies the same criteria as the regulatory tribunal. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm to service users, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner.

The court assesses whether the allegations justify continuation of the order. It does not generally determine their truth or make primary findings of fact. An extension may be granted despite delay where the regulator demonstrates a realistic and properly committed timetable, but continued delay may ultimately make a further extension inappropriate.

Restrictions on access to court documents may be proportionate where disclosure creates a real risk of identifying children or families involved in private family proceedings.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim conditions of practice order imposed on Susan Okpani Evans in April 2021.

The order followed allegations concerning safeguarding failures in social work involving children at risk. It had been reviewed eleven times and was due to expire on 4 February 2025. The principal issue was whether the statutory criteria justified a further seven-month extension, notwithstanding substantial delay caused largely by difficulties obtaining material from Family Court proceedings.

The Claimant also sought advance notice of any non-party application for access to documents on the court file under CPR 5.4C(2), because of the risk of identifying the children and their family.

1. The application to extend the interim conditions of practice order was granted until 3 September 2025. The court applied the principles in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369: the criteria for extension are the same as those governing the making of an interim order.

2. The allegations were serious. If proved, they would represent a significant breach of professional standards and indicated a fundamental failure to understand safeguarding risks. The alleged conduct created a real risk of significant harm, reputational harm to the profession, and repetition in the absence of demonstrable insight or remediation.

3. The court considered the delay in concluding the regulatory proceedings, including the 17-month delay in obtaining Family Court material. The regulator bore the burden of satisfying the court. The proposed timetable was realistic, provided that the regulator maintained a genuine commitment to progress the case. The court encouraged work on witness statements while transcripts were awaited and urged expedition.

4. The potential prejudice to the Defendant, including the effect of the four-year delay on her mental health, was outweighed by the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in professional standards. The order imposed conditions rather than suspending the Defendant, so she remained able to work subject to those conditions.

5. In relation to access to the court file, the court considered GMC v Dr Cian Hughes [2024] EWHC 3176 (Admin) and the two-stage privacy and freedom of expression approach endorsed in ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] AC 1158. The Family Court material concerned proceedings conducted in private and allegations involving children unrelated to the present proceedings. A 14-day notice requirement for non-party applications was therefore a proportionate and necessary restriction on open justice to reduce the risk of jigsaw identification.