A Social Worker v CORU (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application under section 69 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 (as amended), brought by the Applicant, a registered social worker, seeking to appeal the cancellation of her registration by the Respondent, the regulatory body known as CORU. The cancellation decision was communicated on 3rd February 2020. The disciplinary process began with the Applicant's temporary suspension on 2nd February 2016. The case involved multiple procedural steps, including numerous adjournments requested by the Applicant, which the Court ultimately limited to a final peremptory adjournment. The disciplinary inquiry involved allegations of professional misconduct and relevant medical disability, with the Applicant not attending the inquiry and not being legally represented. The inquiry proceeded with evidence from approximately twenty witnesses. The Health Committee found several allegations proven amounting to professional misconduct but did not find the medical disability allegation proven. Following recommendations from the Health Committee and the Board, the Council cancelled the Applicant's registration. The Applicant challenged the fairness of the process and the cancellation decision, citing lack of legal representation, vulnerability due to alleged historic sexual abuse by the main complainant, and procedural unfairness. The Court also addressed a preliminary application regarding anonymity of witnesses due to reputational concerns.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the cancellation of the Applicant’s registration by the Respondent was just and proportionate in all the circumstances.
2. Whether the Applicant was afforded a fair hearing and due process despite her non-participation and lack of legal representation.
3. The extent to which the Court should grant anonymity protections to witnesses in disciplinary proceedings involving sensitive allegations.
4. The Court’s jurisdiction and powers under section 69 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 to confirm, cancel, or modify disciplinary sanctions.
5. The relevance and impact of the Applicant’s inability to secure legal aid on the fairness of the inquiry process.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that she was not afforded a fair procedure, primarily due to lack of legal representation and her vulnerability arising from alleged historic sexual abuse by the main complainant.
• She argued that CORU should not have allowed the inquiry to proceed without legal representation and that the process caused her significant mental health difficulties, stress, and anxiety.
• The Applicant stated she did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings initially because she felt victims of sexual abuse are not heard or believed, expressing mistrust of the system and concern for her daughter’s exposure to the proceedings.
• She claimed that the ongoing criminal matters and her personal circumstances impacted her ability to engage with the process.
• The Applicant sought to highlight that the main complainant was known to her and accused him of sexual abuse and other misconduct, asserting that these allegations affected her participation and the fairness of the process.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that the Applicant had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to engage until the Council meeting in January 2020.
• It was submitted that there is no entitlement to legal representation at the inquiry stage and no right to legal aid, citing relevant case law.
• The Respondent maintained that the inquiry was conducted with fairness and natural justice, including efforts to put the Applicant’s case to witnesses and sharing transcripts with her.
• The Respondent emphasized that the findings of professional misconduct were based on substantial evidence, and that the cancellation sanction was fair, proportionate, and necessary to protect the public and uphold professional standards.
• It was contended that the Applicant should not be permitted to avoid sanction by deliberately not participating in the disciplinary process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analysed the procedural history and the Applicant’s engagement with the disciplinary process. It noted the Applicant’s repeated requests for adjournments and her eventual non-participation in the inquiry, while acknowledging her vulnerable personal circumstances and allegations of historic abuse. The Court examined the evidence before it, including transcripts, affidavits, and psychiatric reports, and found that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted with extensive efforts to ensure fairness despite the Applicant’s absence.

The Court weighed the Applicant’s constitutional rights, including the right to a fair hearing and equality before the law, against the statutory mandate to protect the public and uphold professional standards. It relied on established jurisprudence distinguishing the right to legal representation from the right to legal aid, concluding that absence of legal aid did not invalidate the inquiry.

Regarding the anonymity application, the Court applied constitutional principles from the Gilchrist case to balance the public’s interest in open justice with the need to protect the reputational rights and presumption of innocence of witnesses, particularly given the sensitive nature of the allegations. The Court granted anonymisation orders without requiring a fully in camera hearing.

Ultimately, the Court found that the evidence supported the findings of professional misconduct and that the cancellation sanction was justified and proportionate. It rejected the Applicant’s contention that the process was unfair due to her non-participation and lack of legal aid, emphasizing that the regulatory body had exhausted all reasonable efforts to secure her engagement.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to confirm the decision of the Respondent to cancel the Applicant’s registration as a social worker.

The direct effect of this ruling is the upholding of the disciplinary sanction, thereby barring the Applicant from practising as a registered social worker. The Court did not establish new precedent but reinforced existing principles regarding the limits of entitlement to legal aid in professional disciplinary proceedings, the necessity of timely and fair regulatory processes, and the circumstances justifying anonymity in sensitive hearings. The decision underscores the regulatory body's duty to protect the public and maintain professional standards, even where the registrant is vulnerable or unrepresented.