Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Social Work England & Anor
[2023] EWHC 926 (Admin)
Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England
8 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 73 (Admin)
High Court
A social worker was disciplined in 2019. Two later reviews kept the discipline in place. She appealed, but the court said the appeals were either too late or that the original decision was correct and the need to protect the public outweighed her concerns.
Key Facts
- •Adelaide Arkorful, a social worker, had a Conditions of Practice Order (CPO) imposed in 2019 by the HCPC for misconduct.
- •Two subsequent reviews in 2022 upheld the CPO with modifications.
- •Arkorful appealed both review decisions (Second and Third Appeals).
- •The Second Appeal was out of time.
- •Arkorful argued the original 2019 findings were wrong and the CPO was disproportionate.
- •Social Work England (SWE) argued the appeals were out of time and amounted to impermissible collateral attacks on the 2019 decision.
Legal Principles
Statutory review of a professional disciplinary sanction cannot reopen original findings of fact.
Various case laws cited, including Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council [2017] 1 WLR 169 and Newley v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 1538 (Admin).
Appeals against professional regulatory tribunal decisions are by way of review, not rehearing, unless a practice direction or interests of justice dictate otherwise.
CPR r 52.21(1), Anderson v Social Work England [2020] EWHC 430 (Admin), Northover v Social Work England [2020] EWHC 3259 (Admin), Meadow v General Medical Council [2007] QB 462.
Appellate courts should defer to the expert judgment of specialist professional regulatory tribunals, only interfering if there's an error of principle or the decision falls outside reasonable bounds.
Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2019] 1 WLR 1929, Sastry and another v General Medical Council [2021] WLR 5029.
In professional disciplinary schemes, the protection of the public and public confidence in the profession is paramount.
Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, Watters v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC 1888 (Admin).
The court has a narrow discretion to extend time limits for appeals only in exceptional circumstances, such as to comply with Article 6 ECHR.
Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] 1 WLR 31, Stuewe v Health and Care Professionals Council [2023] 4 WLR 7.
Outcomes
Second Appeal struck out as out of time.
Appellant failed to meet the 28-day time limit, and the court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.
Second Appeal dismissed on the merits.
Ground 1 (challenging the 2019 findings) was an impermissible collateral attack and out of time. Ground 2 (challenging the CPO's proportionality) failed due to deference to the expert judgment of the review panel and the Appellant's initial agreement with the CPO's continuation.
Third Appeal dismissed.
Same grounds as the Second Appeal; the review panel did not err in upholding the CPO, considering the need to protect the public and lack of evidence of remediation or sufficient insight from Arkorful.