DECISION

 

Appeal No [2009] 1699 .SW- SUS

 

IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CARE)

 

JAYNE SEDGEWICK

 

 

-v-

 

THE CARE COUNCIL FOR WALES

 

-Before-

 

 

IAN ROBERTSON

(Nominated Tribunal Judge)

TIM GREENACRE

(Specialist Member)

GILL MACGREGOR

(Specialist Member)

 

 

 

 

Decision

 

 

Heard on 10 March 2010

Care Standards Tribunal Service

18 Pocock Street

London SE1 0BW

 

Representation

 

The parties were content for the matter to be dealt with by way of written submissions.

 

APPEAL

 

1. This is an appeal brought by Mrs Jayne Sedgewick against the decision of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Care Council for Wales on 26 November 2009 to impose an interim suspension Order until 30 March 2010 upon the Appellant.

 

THE BACKGROUND

 

2. Mrs Sedgewick is a registered social worker and also a foster carer working for an independent agency. In 2006 she and her husband fostered a 15 year old girl (A). Whilst in their care A entered into a relationship with an older man aged 19. It is alleged that Mrs Sedgewick knew about this and indeed allowed the boy to sleep with A at their house. She did not discuss this relationship with the childs social worker nor with her own support worker. As a result of this relationship A became pregnant. It is further alleged that on an occasion in March 2006 Mrs Sedgewick and A went on a shopping trip to Telford and stayed overnight in a Hotel. During the course of the evening it is alleged that Mrs Sedgewicke became drunk, allowed A to drink, became involved with a group of men, claimed A was her stepdaughter and aged 18 and allowed her to go to one of the men’s room where sexual activity took place. It is further alleged that when this matter came out she attempted to influence the man involved to lie about the evening.

 

3. In January 2007 Mrs Sedgewick agreed with her employer to stop working as a social worker. Her case was examined by the police and Crown Prosecution Service and she and her husband were charged with 2 counts of causing or inciting sexual activity with a child under 16. On 31 March 2008 she was given a six month interim suspension Order by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Care Council for Wales. On 20 June the interim suspension was renewed to 30 December 2008. On 16 October 2008 criminal charges were dropped. On 20 December 2008 the interim suspension was renewed to 30 June 2009. On 24 June it was renewed to 30 October 2009. On 14 October 2009 Mrs Sedgewick was dismissed by her employer following an independent investigation. On 28 October the suspension was renewed for one month. On 26 November there was a further hearing of the PPC. Mrs Sedgewick attended this for the first time and was represented by a BASW official. Having heard submissions the PPC extended the interim suspension to 30 March 2010 (the maximum term of an interim suspension). It is against this decision that Mrs Sedgewick appeals. The case has now been referred for a full hearing which is unlikely to take place until May.

 

THE LAW

 

4. This has been very succinctly and accurately set out by our colleagues in the case of Sonia West v GSCC [2009] 1614.SW-SUS and we repeat it here;

 

2. The Respondent's power to impose an ISO is provided by Rule 5, (Function of committees) of the General Social Care Council (Conduct) Rules 2008.

           

3.  These provide that before any order is made, the committee must be satisfied that such an order is necessary for the protection of members of the public, or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the registrant herself.

           

4. The committee should bear in mind the effects of any sanction on the registrant and whether it would be proportionate. The need for the protection of the public, particularly service users, and the maintenance of the public's confidence in social care provision must be balanced against the consequences of an ISO for the registrant.

           

5. The committee should consider the seriousness of the allegations, and any evidence relating to the likelihood of any further incidents of harm, particularly to service users, occurring in the period before the final disposal of the complaint. An ISO is an interim measure and lasts in the first instance for six months.

           

6. The appeal against the ISO is brought to the tribunal under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000. The powers of the tribunal at an appeal against an ISO are the same as the Preliminary Proceedings Committee in that it considers the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the evidence, the risk of harm to members of the public, the wider public interest and the prejudice to the Applicant if the order was continued. It can consider any additional information received by either party after the Preliminary Proceedings Committee. It does not make any findings of fact.

 

ANALYSIS

 

5. As stated above it is not our function to make findings of fact in relation to the allegations. They are however extremely serious involving as they do significant breaches of trust and lapses of judgment that impact upon the appropriateness of her continuing to be registered as a Social Worker. We have looked at the evidential base for the allegations and it appears to us that there is sufficiently cogent evidence to found a prima facie case. We note that following hearings the Appellant was dismissed by her employers and was deregistered as a foster carer by her agency. We note that the matter is now proceeding to a full hearing. Although the suspension has been for a long period we note that at no stage prior to the hearing in November 2009 did Mrs Sedgewick appear at the Preliminary Proceedings Committee nor did she appeal, as is her right, any previous decisions to suspend. It is also notable that she chose not to attend in person at this appeal but was rather content that it be considered by us on the papers.

 

6. In the skeleton argument lodged in support of the appeal reference is made to decisions of the higher courts regarding suspensions in other jurisdictions (Sheikh v General Dentistry Council [2007] EWHC 2972 and Dr X v General Medical Council [2001] EWHC Admin 447). These quite rightly point out the serious consequences of suspension and how they should be applied in only the most exceptional cases, a view supported by various decisions of this Tribunal. Nonetheless suspension is a valid response to situations where the need for the protection of the public, particularly service users, and the maintenance of the public's confidence in social care provision demands it.

 

7. We have considered most carefully the Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers (Care Council for Wales) and note in particular the following;

 

                  “As a social care worker, you must uphold public trust and confidence               in social care services. In particular you must not:

·       Abuse, neglect or harm service users, carers or colleagues

·       Exploit service users, carers or colleagues in any way

·       Abuse the trust of service users and carers or the access you have to personal information about them, or to their property or workplace

·       Form inappropriate personal relationships with service users”

 

8. It appears to us given the gravity of the allegations and the matters we have outlined above that continued suspension is appropriate and we therefore dismiss the appeal. We have had cause previously to raise questions about the delay in bringing cases to hearing and the concomitant length of suspensions imposed by the Care Councils. In this case the effect of delay is extreme in that pending a final determination Mrs Sedgewick is actually free to work as a social worker from 31 March as the two year maximum period of suspension will have passed. This cannot be in the public interest. We note the particular difficulties of this case, firstly the criminal proceedings and the complications therein and latterly the hearings brought by her employer and the fostering agency. Nonetheless there is a tendency for the Care Council(s) to treat enquiries sequentially and allow other procedures to take place before they make their own enquiries. We would urge upon them a more proactive approach, particularly in cases like this when time limits are involved.

 

            Appeal Dismissed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IAN ROBERTSON (Nominated Tribunal Judge)