AB v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
Orla Maire Gleeson v Social Work England
2 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 3 (Admin)
High Court
A social worker was accused of misconduct in her personal relationships. A judge overturned some of the accusations because the evidence was weak and the process unfair. Other accusations were upheld. The judge will decide what happens next.
Key Facts
- •Orla Maire Gleeson, a social worker, appealed High Court decisions against findings of misconduct and a removal order by Social Work England (SWE).
- •Allegations involved conduct in personal relationships with Person A (2012-2015) and Person B (2016-2017), and inappropriate social media postings.
- •The panel found some allegations proved (aggressive emotional abuse towards Person A, pulling Person B out of bed, attempting to push Person B down the stairs, inappropriate social media posts), and others not proved.
- •The appeal challenged the panel's jurisdiction, the adequacy of particularisation, the fairness of the hearing, the panel's reasoning, and the sanction imposed.
Legal Principles
Adequate particularisation of misconduct allegations is required to ensure a fair opportunity to prepare a defence.
Squier v GMC [2015] EWHC 299 (Admin) and Hutchinson v General Dental Council [2008] EWHC 2896 (Admin)
Challenges to findings of primary fact, especially credibility assessments, are virtually unassailable.
Southall v General Medical Council [2010] WCA Civ 407
Misconduct can encompass serious conduct outside professional practice that brings disgrace upon the profession.
R (Remedy UK Limited) v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin) and Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin)
Denial of misconduct is not grounds for increased sanction, but it hinders demonstrating insight and reducing the risk of repetition.
Sayer v General Osteopatic Council [2021] EWHC 370 (Admin)
Outcomes
Allegations of misconduct against Ms Gleeson relating to Person A were set aside.
The panel's findings were based on insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities. The panel relied on evidence not properly before it and misinterpreted other evidence.
Allegations of misconduct against Ms Gleeson relating to Person B were upheld.
The panel's findings were supported by sufficient evidence and there were no procedural irregularities.
Further submissions were requested regarding the appropriate disposal of the case, considering remittal or other options.
The court's findings regarding Person A required further consideration of the appropriate remedy.
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)
Andrei Christian Juchi v The Nursing and Midwifery Council
[2024] EWHC 2825 (Admin)
General Medical Council & Anor v Maxwell Dugboyele
[2024] EWHC 2651 (Admin)