Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) – 14 March 2014 (unreported) (Lewis J)In this case, The High Court found that a Health & Care Professions Council Committee had been entitled to find that
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) – 14 March 2014 (unreported) (Lewis J)
In this case, The High Court found that a Health & Care Professions Council Committee had been entitled to find that the appellant social worker's Fitness to Practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence, that her actions had placed service users at risk and that the sanction imposed by the CCC of suspension for 12 months was appropriate (Rice v Health Professions Council [2011] EWHC 1649 (Admin) applied). The case provides a useful reminder of the approach the higher courts will take when reviewing the decisions of professional conduct committees in statutory appeals.
The social worker "C" was a specialist children's social worker with over 25 years' experience and at the time of the events in question worked as a family centre practitioner employed by a local authority. The Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) considered allegations against C which spanned a two year period and consisted of failures to: (i) complete management instructions within deadlines; (ii) manage her time, including consistent lateness for work; (iii) to keep accurate records; (iv) undertake full and accurate assessments of certain service users; (v) prepare full and accurate reports in respect of some service users; (vi) ensure she was up to date with current research and/or social work theories and/or assessment tools; (vii) identify certain child protection concerns.
It was C's case that her employers were aware that she had a physical impairment and had a duty to make reasonable adjustments. C contended that she was unable to work as effectively as her able-bodied peers and that she faced a hostile working environment. The CCC however, found that C had been appropriately managed and supported. In light of its findings of fact, the CCC concluded that C's actions placed service users at risk and her conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence, and that a 12 month suspension was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances.
C appealed against the defendant's decision on the grounds that there had been a delay in bringing the matter before the CCC; that insufficient regard had been paid to her disability and the state of her health; and that she had not been adequately supported in order to help her carry out her role. C further argued that she had an unblemished record for over 25 years and that the 12 month suspension was unduly harsh.
In dismissing the appeal, the court held
(1) That in a statutory appeal such as this the appeal would not be allowed unless the decision of the CCC was either wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural error or other irregularity. The approach of the Court to the challenge of an expert body such as the CCC was that: (a) appropriate weight should be given to the CCC as a specialist tribunal; (b) the CCC had had the advantage of hearing live witness evidence; (c) the Court should be slow to interfere with decisions on matters of fact taken by the CCC; (d) findings of primary fact, particularly if founded on the assessment of credibility of witnesses, were unassailable unless shown with reasonable certainty to be wrong; (e) where what was concerned was a matter of judgment or evaluation of evidence relating to other areas outside the immediate focus of interest and professional experience, the Court would moderate the degree of deference that it was prepared to accord. Rice v Health Professions Council [2011] EWHC 1649 (Admin) applied.
(2) The CCC could not be faulted for its approach to the question of a fair hearing and its conclusion that there was no unreasonable delay. The Court could not say that the CCC had been wrong in its assessment of the evidence regarding C's disability and how she had been treated by her employers. The Court could not fault the CCC's approach that it could not overlook the two-year period of the allegations merely because C had a long and unblemished record until such time.
(3) It could not be said that the CCC's finding that the minimum time of a 12 month suspension in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence was wrong or unreasonable.
In this case, The High Court found that a Health & Care Professions Council Committee had been entitled to find that the appellant social worker's Fitness to Practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence, that her actions had placed service users at risk and that the sanction imposed by the CCC of suspension for 12 months was appropriate (Rice v Health Professions Council [2011] EWHC 1649 (Admin) applied). The case provides a useful reminder of the approach the higher courts will take when reviewing the decisions of professional conduct committees in statutory appeals.
The social worker "C" was a specialist children's social worker with over 25 years' experience and at the time of the events in question worked as a family centre practitioner employed by a local authority. The Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) considered allegations against C which spanned a two year period and consisted of failures to: (i) complete management instructions within deadlines; (ii) manage her time, including consistent lateness for work; (iii) to keep accurate records; (iv) undertake full and accurate assessments of certain service users; (v) prepare full and accurate reports in respect of some service users; (vi) ensure she was up to date with current research and/or social work theories and/or assessment tools; (vii) identify certain child protection concerns.
It was C's case that her employers were aware that she had a physical impairment and had a duty to make reasonable adjustments. C contended that she was unable to work as effectively as her able-bodied peers and that she faced a hostile working environment. The CCC however, found that C had been appropriately managed and supported. In light of its findings of fact, the CCC concluded that C's actions placed service users at risk and her conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence, and that a 12 month suspension was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances.
C appealed against the defendant's decision on the grounds that there had been a delay in bringing the matter before the CCC; that insufficient regard had been paid to her disability and the state of her health; and that she had not been adequately supported in order to help her carry out her role. C further argued that she had an unblemished record for over 25 years and that the 12 month suspension was unduly harsh.
In dismissing the appeal, the court held
(1) That in a statutory appeal such as this the appeal would not be allowed unless the decision of the CCC was either wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural error or other irregularity. The approach of the Court to the challenge of an expert body such as the CCC was that: (a) appropriate weight should be given to the CCC as a specialist tribunal; (b) the CCC had had the advantage of hearing live witness evidence; (c) the Court should be slow to interfere with decisions on matters of fact taken by the CCC; (d) findings of primary fact, particularly if founded on the assessment of credibility of witnesses, were unassailable unless shown with reasonable certainty to be wrong; (e) where what was concerned was a matter of judgment or evaluation of evidence relating to other areas outside the immediate focus of interest and professional experience, the Court would moderate the degree of deference that it was prepared to accord. Rice v Health Professions Council [2011] EWHC 1649 (Admin) applied.
(2) The CCC could not be faulted for its approach to the question of a fair hearing and its conclusion that there was no unreasonable delay. The Court could not say that the CCC had been wrong in its assessment of the evidence regarding C's disability and how she had been treated by her employers. The Court could not fault the CCC's approach that it could not overlook the two-year period of the allegations merely because C had a long and unblemished record until such time.
(3) It could not be said that the CCC's finding that the minimum time of a 12 month suspension in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence was wrong or unreasonable.