Social Work England v Sara Farnsworth
[2023] EWHC 2455 (Admin)
Social Work England v Charmaine Morgan
5 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2458 (Admin)
High Court
A social worker was temporarily suspended. The judge extended the suspension because it's important to keep the public safe, despite the social worker's objections. The judge also said that court documents should generally be available to everyone, and there's no need for extra rules about that in this case. Finally, the judge made it possible for the social worker to ask for the decision to be changed.
Key Facts
- •Social Work England (SWE) sought a 10-month extension to an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) against Charmaine Morgan.
- •The ISO was initially imposed on 12 April 2022 and continued on 30 November 2022.
- •Morgan faced four allegations of misconduct, three of which were found proven at a previous hearing.
- •The extension was sought to protect the public interest pending a final hearing scheduled for January 2024.
- •Morgan did not appear or consent to the extension.
- •A previous Order redacting details of the allegations was improperly redacted by SWE, not the court.
Legal Principles
Necessity for public protection and confidence in extending an ISO.
GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369
Open justice principle applies to court orders and judgments.
Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2023
Court permission is needed to obtain documents other than claim forms, judgments, or orders.
CPR 5.4C(2)
Mandatory review of interim orders under the Social Workers Regulations 2018 does not apply to cases where a final order has already been made.
Social Workers Regulations 2018, Schedule 2 Part 4 Paragraph 14(1)
Outcomes
The ISO was extended by 10 months until 10 August 2024.
SWE demonstrated the necessity for the extension to protect the public, outweighing any prejudice to Morgan.
SWE's request for a prospective order regarding 14 days' notice for non-party document applications was refused.
The open justice principle prevails, and the court can handle such applications on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed mandatory review provision in the order was removed.
Statutory review provisions don't apply where a final order (suspension order) has previously been made.
Liberty to apply was granted to Morgan to vary the order.
To address the fact Morgan had been led to believe a review provision would be included.