AB v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Social Work England & Anor
25 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 926 (Admin)
High Court
A social worker was suspended for bad behavior and health problems. The court said the decision was unfair because they didn't properly consider all the bad behavior, so they sent the case back to be decided again properly.
Key Facts
- •Social Work England (SWE) suspended JS, a social worker, for 2 years due to impaired fitness to practice based on a health condition (bipolar disorder) and inclusion in the DBS barred lists.
- •The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appealed, arguing insufficient sanction and procedural irregularity (failure to allege misconduct).
- •JS's impairment stemmed from a home visit while intoxicated and neglect of her children.
- •The HCPC initially treated the intoxication incident as a health matter, not misconduct.
- •SWE inherited the case and joined both health and barring issues, but didn't explicitly allege misconduct.
- •The panel considered evidence, including a psychiatrist's report, but didn't fully address the potential for misconduct charges.
Legal Principles
The regulator's most fundamental purpose is maintaining the profession's reputation.
Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512
The primary object of professional regulatory regimes is protecting the public, not penalizing misconduct.
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GMC and Ruscillo [2005] 1 WLR 717
Disciplinary tribunals must consider whether facts demonstrate proven professional misconduct and impose an appropriate sanction.
Ruscillo [73]
Tribunals must play an active role in ensuring proper case presentation and relevant evidence.
Ruscillo [80]
Public confidence must reflect the views of an informed and reasonable member of the public.
Giele v GMC [2006] 1WLR 942
Adequacy of reasons depends on the case; panels need to demonstrate why a sanction was appropriate.
Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] 4 WLR 11
Appeals are reviews, not rehearings; the court determines if the decision was wrong.
Ruscillo [71]
Intervention is justified if the sanction is inadequate, putting the public at risk.
Ruscillo [68]
Failure to give adequate reasons for a decision is a serious procedural irregularity.
Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Dental Council and Marshall [2006] EWHC 1870 (Admin)
Undercharging (failure to include relevant allegations) is a serious procedural irregularity.
PSA v NMC and Jozi [2015] EWHC 764 (Admin)
Public confidence is assessed by reference to a reasonably well-informed citizen.
Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] PTSR 675
Suspension vs. removal is a multi-factorial decision; courts interfere only with errors of principle.
GMC v Bawa-Garba [2019] 1 WLR 1929
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on the ground of procedural irregularity.
The panel failed to address allegations of misconduct, constituting 'undercharging'. This prevented the court from determining sanction appropriateness.
Case remitted to SWE.
To reformulate the allegations to include misconduct, then be heard by a different panel.
Similar Cases
Orla Maire Gleeson v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 3 (Admin)
Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England
[2024] EWHC 73 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor
[2024] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board
[2024] EWHC 2946 (Admin)