High Court Examines Social Worker's Private Life Misconduct in Fitness to Practise Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 3 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the case of Orla Maire Gleeson v Social Work England, the High Court grappled with issues of professional conduct and fitness to practise within the context of a social worker’s private life. This case elucidates significant legal principles concerning allegations of misconduct, the jurisdiction of professional regulatory bodies, standards of proof in fitness to practise proceedings, and the implications of a practitioner’s denial of such allegations.

Key Facts

Orla Maire Gleeson, a registered social worker first employed by Wigan Council in 2014, was subjected to fitness to practise proceedings by Social Work England (SWE). Allegations involved misconduct related to personal relationships (identified as Person A and Person B) and inappropriate social media postings after suspension by Wigan Council. The panel found Gleeson’s fitness to practise was impaired due to misconduct, resulting in a removal order. Gleeson appealed to the High Court, challenging the panel’s findings and the scope of the regulatory body’s jurisdiction to investigate her private life.

Several legal principles are central to this case, notably:

  1. Scope of Regulatory Jurisdiction & Misconduct: The High Court examined whether a social worker’s private conduct could constitute ‘misconduct’ and impact professional fitness to practise. It affirms the principle that a professional’s private behavior may be scrutinized if it carries implications for public confidence in the profession or the individual’s professional reputation.

  2. Adequacy of Particularization: The case emphasizes the need for allegations to be adequately particularized to provide fair notice to the defendant and enable a robust defense.

  3. Approach to Evidence: Given the conflicting accounts and historical nature of the allegations, the Court discusses the proper approach to evaluating witness credibility, especially the reliance on contemporaneous documentary evidence such as police reports.

  4. Denial and Insight in Misconduct Proceedings: A key theme explored is the balance between denying misconduct allegations and demonstrating ‘insight’, a critical factor for assessing the risk of repetition. The Court recognizes that while a denial need not preclude a professional from showing insight, persistent denial makes demonstrating such insight more challenging.

  5. Sanctioning: The High Court scrutinizes the principles governing the imposition of sanctions, with emphasis on the severity and proportionality of the sanction in relation to the proven misconduct.


The High Court’s deliberations led to the following outcomes:

  1. Findings Relating to Person A: The allegations specific to aggressive emotional abuse and threats towards Person A were quashed due to the procedural unfairness and incorrect interpretation of evidence.

  2. Findings Relating to Person B: The allegations of assault found proved against Person B stood, as the court did not find any substantive grounds to overturn the panel’s findings.

  3. Appropriateness of the Removal Order: While the court has initially indicated that the matter would be remitted for reconsideration of impairment and sanction, it also highlighted potential concerns arising from an inflexible application of sanctioning guidelines.

  4. Amendment of Allegation: The High Court found the panel’s amendment of the allegation to align with the witness’s evidence to be permissible and non-prejudicial.

  5. Misconduct in Private Life: It was affirmed that misconduct in a social worker’s personal life could fall within the scope of professional regulatory concerns, especially if it brings the profession into disrepute.


The High Court’s analysis in Gleeson v SWE underscores the delicate balance between assessing private conduct and its impact on professional fitness. It reiterates the necessity for specificity in allegations, the critical appraisal of evidence, and the nuanced understanding of insight in the context of professional misconduct. Importantly, the case reaffirms that regulatory proceedings must coincide with fair trial principles, preserving the balance between protecting public interest and maintaining a practitioner’s right to a fair hearing. The outcomes echo the principle that practitioners are expected to uphold the public’s trust not only in their professional practice but also in their personal conduct when it significantly reflects on their profession.

Related Summaries