Orla Maire Gleeson v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 3 (Admin)
AB v Social Work England
19 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
High Court
A social worker was fired for misconduct. The court agreed with some of the reasons but sent others back for a second look because of mistakes in how the decision was made and new evidence. The social worker remains suspended.
Key Facts
- •Social Work England (SWE) found the Applicant's fitness to practice impaired due to misconduct.
- •The Panel imposed a removal order from the register of social workers.
- •The Applicant appealed to the High Court.
- •The Applicant had a 20+ year unblemished record before the complaints.
- •Allegations included inappropriate communication, improper data handling, and providing inaccurate information.
- •SWE conceded inadequate reasoning in relation to allegations 3-5, relating to dishonesty.
- •The Applicant presented new evidence contradicting hearsay evidence.
Legal Principles
SWE's primary objective is public protection, and it has powers to safeguard the public from unfit social workers.
Children and Social Work Act 2017 and Social Workers Regulations 2018
Final orders of SWE adjudicators are appealable to the High Court. Appeals involve review or rehearing, focusing on whether the decision was wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularities.
Paragraph 16(1)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
The appeal court should consider the Panel's assessment of evidence and expertise in social work.
Section 6
Even if communications are private, professional standards of conduct may still apply.
R (on the application of Remedy UK) v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1245
Disciplinary panels can take a proactive role in relation to evidence.
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council and Ruscillo, [2004] EWCA Civ 1356
There is no power to appeal an interim order made at the same time as a final order.
Paragraph 16(1)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed for allegations 1 and 2.
The Panel's conclusions were unimpeachable and within the range of reasonable decisions based on the evidence.
Allegations 3, 4, and 5 remitted to a differently constituted Panel.
SWE conceded inadequate reasoning and procedural error in relation to these allegations; the Applicant also presented new evidence.
Similar Cases
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Social Work England & Anor
[2023] EWHC 926 (Admin)
Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 73 (Admin)
Mary Cascioli v Nursing and Midwifery Council
[2024] EWHC 1109 (Admin)
Shah Ali v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin)