Court dismisses appeal in Arkorful v Social Work England suspension case

The High Court dismissed Adelaide Arkorful’s appeal against the extension of her suspension order imposed by Social Work England (SWE). The case, reported as Arkorful v Social Work England [2025] EWHC 1456 (Admin), saw Mr Justice Dexter Dias reject both of the appellant’s grounds, thereby upholding the six‑month extension of her disciplinary suspension.

Background of the case

Adelaide Arkorful, a social worker with an unblemished record prior to 2019, first found herself at the centre of regulatory proceedings when the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) imposed a Conditions of Practice Order (CPO) on 26 June 2019. The original panel found that she had committed various alleged professional failings—including insufficient documentation of child in need visits and a failure to secure timely interventions in cases involving vulnerable children. These findings, deemed to have significantly impaired her fitness to practise, prompted a series of reviews and appeals over the ensuing years.

After several iterations, the disciplinary process culminated in a suspension order. At the Fifth Review in October 2024, despite submission of extensive written representations by Arkorful, the review panel maintained that her fitness to practise remained “currently impaired.” Citing continued deficiencies such as a lack of demonstrable insight into the severity of the regulatory concerns and inadequate remediation, the panel extended her suspension order by a further six months, effectively barring her from practice until June 2025.

Grounds of appeal

Arkorful’s appeal rested on two main grounds. The first challenged the factual findings of the Original Panel—arguing that the misconduct allegations were inaccurate and that she had been unfairly scapegoated by the regulatory process. Her submissions maintained that she had not, for example, lent money to a service user as was alleged, and she insisted that the original findings were based on flawed and incomplete evidence.

The second ground of appeal contested the proportionality of the extended suspension order. Arkorful argued that the decision was unnecessary and disproportionate, particularly in light of her claims of having completed her continuing professional development (CPD) and having otherwise met the requirements to safely resume practice.

The court’s judgment

In delivering his judgment, Mr Justice Dexter Dias dismissed the appellant’s challenges on both grounds. On the first ground, the judge observed that Arkorful had earlier declined to contest the factual findings in previous appeals and that any attempt to relitigate that issue at this stage was both untimely and procedurally inappropriate. He emphasized that the purpose of the review process was not to reexamine established findings but to assess current fitness to practise and professional rehabilitation.

On the second ground, the court found that the extension of the suspension order was proportionate. The judge accepted that while challenges regarding CPD completion had been raised, the evidence before the Review Panel indicated that Arkorful had not sufficiently addressed the critical concerns highlighted in earlier proceedings. In particular, her submissions failed to demonstrate a meaningful level of insight or remediation—factors that are central to assessing whether a social worker can safely resume practice. The Court noted that the panel’s decision aligned with established legal principles and previous case law, which stress the need to balance individual rights with the imperative to protect public welfare.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.