High Court Extends Interim Suspension Order for Social Worker William Yalden Despite Resource Limitations

Citation: [2024] EWHC 86 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Social Work England v William Yalden, the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division, sitting in Leeds, addresses the application for an extension of an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) for a social worker, Mr. Yalden. The administrative decision before Fordham J is detailed in the judgment dated 23 January 2024, with case number AC-2023-LDS-000301.

Key Facts

Mr. Yalden, a social worker, faced allegations of misconduct including unauthorized access to a child’s records and fabricating visits, false recording, and failure to undertake statutory visits and assessments. These allegations arose from two distinct periods of time between 2021 and 2022. Yalden, expressing disinterest in continuing his social work career, did not oppose the extension of the ISO. The court was required to assess whether an extension was necessary for public protection and consistent with the public interest.

The court applied specific legal principles in deciding whether to extend the ISO:

  1. The authority of Schedule 2 §14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 grants the power to issue an ISO and provides the framework for extensions.

  2. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 is pertinent to the considerations for extending an ISO, emphasizing the importance of the necessity for continuation in the public interest and for public protection.

  3. The court examined CPR 5.4C, which governs the disclosure of court records to non-parties, and the need for prior notice of applications for such access.

  4. The principle of ensuring due process deemed it necessary for SWE to demonstrate the need for an ISO extension while balancing this against the prejudice to the defendant caused by the prolongation of matters and taking into account his expressed desire to resolve the case.

  5. A review of the extension timelines was considered in light of the current capacity and resources available to SWE, which indicated no new hearings could be listed until April 2025. The principle of proportionality dictated that an extension should not assume the status quo regarding resource limitations would persist without improvement.

Outcomes

Fordham J ordered a 16-month extension of the ISO rather than the requested 18 months, to last until 10 June 2025. The decision acknowledged that while SWE’s caseload issues and resource limitations were material considerations, an assumption that these would not improve was not acceptable, suggesting that a return to court for further explanation would be necessary should resolution not be possible within the extended timeframe.

Additionally, the judge required 14 days notice prior to any non-party applications (under CPR 5.4C) to access court documents, with the provision to expedite this process if necessary.

Conclusion

The case adjudicates the delicate balance between public protection and due process while also considering SWE’s administrative capacity. The court was cautious not to unduly prolong the disciplinary process for Mr. Yalden while acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations and the need for a fair resolution in the public interest. The court’s decision to grant a shorter extension than requested serves as a directive to SWE to address resource limitations to enable fair and timely judicial processes.