High Court quash SWE erasure due to significant procedural errors

In the case of AB v Social Work England [2024] EWHC 2874 (Admin), the High Court quashed a decision by Social Work England (SWE) to remove social worker AB from the register due to significant procedural errors. AB had appealed against the SWE Panel’s decision, which found her fitness to practise impaired due to misconduct, including inappropriate communication with a colleague and improper handling of confidential information.

The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Sweeting, ruled that the Panel’s decision contained serious procedural errors, particularly in evaluating hearsay evidence. As a result, the findings related to the most serious allegations were quashed, and the case was sent back for reconsideration by a different panel.

In the case, AB (the appellant) was the subject of an SWE Fitness to Practise investigation, which culminated in a fourteen-day hearing. The Panel found her fitness to practise to be impaired due to misconduct.

The sanction imposed by the Panel was to remove the Appellant from the Register of Social Workers. The Panel also revoked an interim suspension order previously imposed and imposed a new 18-month interim suspension order.

Five allegations of misconduct were made against the Appellant as follows:

a. Allegation 1: Inappropriate communication with a colleague.
b. Allegation 2: Improper handling of, and access to, confidential information, including retaining and disclosing a safeguarding alert without consent, accessing her son’s social work records without a legitimate reason, and keeping case notes after her employment had ended.
c. Allegations 3, 4, and 5: Providing inaccurate information about child protection visits, failing to ensure the safeguarding of service users, and acting dishonestly in relation to these matters.
Resolution of the Substantive Appeal

Prior to the appeal hearing, SWE conceded the appeal in relation to Allegations 3, 4 and 5 relating to the child protection visits.

The basis for this concession was an acknowledgment by SWE, Mr. Justice Sweeting summarised, that the Panel’s reasoning in respect of these allegations was not adequately detailed, particularly regarding the evaluation of hearsay evidence. Additionally, the Appellant had obtained new evidence that she argued contradicted the hearsay evidence SWE had relied on. SWE proposed that these allegations should be remitted to a differently constituted Panel for redetermination.

The appeal proceeded in respect of Allegations 1 and 2.

The effect of my judgment was that the appeal was dismissed in relation to these matters and allegations 3, 4 and 5 were remitted to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.

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.