British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Skervin v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 1076(SW) (17 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2008/1076(SW).html
Cite as: [2007] EWCST 1076(SW)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- Preliminary Issues
- .1 For the reasons set out in the Adjournment Note attached to this decision, the hearing set down for 19th November 2007 had to be adjourned to allow the Appellant to seek legal representation.
- 2 In response to the directions as set out in the Note, the Appellant submitted a further copy of his appeal form duly signed and dated and a signed copy of his witness statement.
- In addition to the tribunal bundle of papers ('the bundle'), which was prepared in advance of the hearing, the Tribunal considered a written Skeleton Argument, submitted by the Appellant on the day of the hearing, which had been prepared by Mr Mehrzad of the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
- The Tribunal read two witness statements (dated 12 and 30 October 2007 respectively) from Ms Kathryn Hollinrake, the Conduct Manager of the Suitability Assessment Service of the General Social Care Council ('the GSCC') and read the evidence of the Appellant contained in his witness statement and the documents referred to therein. Ms Hollinrake and the Appellant both gave oral evidence on oath.
- We were particularly mindful of the Appellant's difficulties in representing himself and made every effort to ensure that he understood what he needed to do to put his case properly. We had the benefit of Mr Mehrzad's skeleton argument and Ms Morris also provided the Appellant with proper assistance in clarifying and addressing the key issues facing him.
- The GSCC was formed by virtue of Section 54 of the Care Standards Act 2000 ("the Act") with the responsibility for promoting in England high standards of conduct and practice and training among social workers. Section 57 (1) of the Act provides that an application for registration as a social worker must be made to the Council of the GSCC in accordance with the relevant rules, which are set out in the GSCC Registration Rules 2005 (the rules).
- Section 58 of the Act sets out the grounds upon which applications shall be granted, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the GSCC thinks fit. Section 58 (1) states that the GSCC must be satisfied that the applicant is (a) of good character; (b) is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in any part of the register to which his application relates; and (c) satisfies the relevant statutory conditions as to qualifications, training, conduct and competence set out in sub-sections (2) and (3)],
- Rule IV (Application for Registration) states (so far as material) as follows:
- When making its decisions, the Respondent must take into account the Code of Practice. This sets out the conduct expected of social care workers by reference to a number of principles, the second of which is that social care workers must strive to maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers. This includes:-
- Rule 14 allows the GSCC to refer an application for consideration by its Registration Committee, which is made up of independent panel members who sit with an independent legal adviser. An independent medical adviser is also available to advise on health matters. The Committee has power to refuse or grant an application (without conditions) or to adjourn to allow consideration of further information or to enable the applicant to consider any proposed conditions differing from any conditions in the Notice of Referral.
- Section 68 of the Act provides the right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for registration to the Care Standards Tribunal. Section 68 (2) of the Act states that the Tribunal may confirm the decision of the GSCC or direct that it shall not have effect. Section 68(3) provides that the Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal against a decision—
- An appeal before the Tribunal is by way of a rehearing and, generally, a tribunal has the same powers as the Committee against whose decision the appeal is brought.
- The onus is on the Appellant (or the Applicant before the Registration Committee) to demonstrate that he is a person who meets the requirements of section 58(1), namely to prove that he is of good character: Jones -v- Commission for Social Care Inspection [2004] EWCA Civ 1783 at [13-15] and CR -v- General Social Care Council [2006] 0626. SW 23. An understanding of the importance of openness and integrity is material to a judgment as to whether an Appellant (or Applicant) is of good character.
- The Appellant completed an application dated 3rd April 2006 for registration with the GSCC. He had taken up a post as a social worker that day with Lincolnshire County Council and his managers duly verified and countersigned the form.
- On the form the Appellant gave details of his career, confirming he had qualified as a social worker in August 2000, with a Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) from Liverpool John Moore's University. His employment history showed his first post as a social worker was with Peterborough City Council ('Peterborough') from 16 July 2001 to 17 August 2001 when he was dismissed before he could complete his probationary period. Subsequently he worked for two further employers as follows:
- According to the Appellant, he also undertook 9 months voluntary work for the Citizens Advice Bureau during the period of a year that he was unemployed between his dismissal from Direct Care and his employment by Lincolnshire in April 2006. Pending completion of his application to become registered, Lincolnshire temporarily redeployed him from his social work post on 7 June 2006 to a non-qualified post as a community care worker. He resigned from this post on 14 August 2006. He has been out of work since then and is not currently employed in any paid or unpaid work.
- In the section of the application covering disciplinary matters, the Appellant listed two previous disciplinary findings against him. Firstly, he said Peterborough had dismissed him in 2000 for taking unauthorised days off and secondly Direct Care had dismissed him in 2004 for leaving without notice. He said he was not currently the subject of any disciplinary investigation.
- On 3rd May 2006 the GSCC asked him for further information about the disciplinary offences at Peterborough and Direct Care, requesting him to list each offence with details of the circumstances and his explanation for them, and the extent to which his situation had changed since then. In his response dated 16th May the Appellant disclosed that Peterborough had allocated a case to him of someone related to him and this conflict of interest led the service user to complain. He stated the pressures arising from his personal life at the time including the discovery that his live-in partner was having an affair and a close associate had taken £4,000 from him had affected his practice, but his request for time off had been refused due to a lack of staff.
- In his response to the GSCC he also explained that his dismissal from Direct Care had arisen after an incident involving a resident as the result of which he had not turned up to work. He said the resident, who was being restrained, had temporarily blinded him for some hours by spraying perfume in his eyes. He had felt the incident was avoidable and showed his employer had unacceptably compromised his safety.
- In addition, he volunteered an explanation for his dismissal from Bridgegate, stating this was because he had failed a drug test for cannabis, which he attributed to passive smoking because he lived with a person who smoked cannabis.
- The GSCC then undertook a lengthy period of enquiries into the Appellant's employment history with Peterborough, Direct Care and Bridgegate, including requests for the relevant paperwork for the disciplinary findings. Responses to these enquiries eventually confirmed in July 2006 that disciplinary records from Peterborough and Direct Care had been lost. Paperwork relating to the Bridgegate disciplinary proceedings gave details of the allegations considered by the company, which included a further concern about a text message on the Appellant's mobile phone that appeared to suggest he was implicated in supplying cannabis. It confirmed he had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for failing to supply a satisfactory explanation for either the positive test or the phone message.
- On 19 June 2006 the GSCC returned the application form to the Appellant because his endorser had failed to complete and sign one section. The GSCC received the completed amended Application 3rd July 2006, as well as a clear Enhanced CRB check. On 10th July it requested provision of a second reference and confirmation that Direct Care had obtained the Appellant's permission to release relevant information to the GSCC. On 19th July Direct Care supplied information about the disciplinary in 2004 stating that the delay in providing this had been due to the length of time it had taken to obtain the Appellant's consent to disclosure.
- From the correspondence between Direct Care and the Appellant it appeared the latter had been invited to meetings to discuss a number of concerns about him but he had failed to attend two pre-arranged and notified meetings despite warnings that his employment position was under threat. These concerns, which were discussed in full at the final meeting resulting in his dismissal, included his repeated lateness for shifts and his absence from pre-arranged events such as training in control and restraint (Team Teach).
- In July 2006 the GSCC received good references for the Appellant from Lincolnshire senior staff. These variously stated there had been no problems with the Appellant's working practices, his time keeping or his attendance, his commitment to the job and to service users had been impressive, he was developing well in his area of work with physically disabled adults and had conducted himself in a professional and effective manner. Other good references were also available, including one from Bridgegate stating that, other than the circumstances of his dismissal, there had been no concerns about the Appellant's conduct.
- The GSCC told the Appellant on 3 August that his application was to be referred to the Registration Committee ('the Committee'), with a recommendation for refusal of registration. Alternatively, conditions on registration would be recommended, but this was contingent on the information due to be received from Peterborough. On 10th August the Appellant notified the GSCC he had had to resign from Lincolnshire.
- In her referral to the Committee on 6th October 2006, Ms Hayes, a GSCC Suitability Assessment Service Manager recommended registration be refused on the basis the Appellant had failed to assure the GSCC as to his good character and conduct, due specifically to his
- On 3 January 2007 the Appellant was sent formal confirmation of the referral to the Committee. The initial hearing on 6 February 2007 was adjourned to enable the Appellant to make oral submissions. The Committee also decided it needed further information from Peterborough and Lincolnshire respectively, and with regard to the potential for a positive test result from passive smoking of cannabis.
- The Committee reconvened on 24 April 2007 at a hearing attended by the Appellant who was not represented. Also present was the Medical Adviser, Dr Fletcher. The recommendation to refuse registration was upheld on the grounds the Appellant had not satisfied the Committee that he met the criteria set out in section 58 of the Act with regard to his good character and conduct in terms of his integrity, reliability, dependability and trustworthiness. The Committee concluded that the Appellant's conduct leading to his dismissal by three employers in a relatively short period of time, together with the non-disclosure of disciplinary findings to both Lincolnshire and the GSCC, demonstrated significant departures from key provisions of the Code of Practice.
- The Committee was satisfied that the three employers had dismissed the Appellant for the majority of the reasons previously stated. In addition, it found that, on the balance of probabilities, the result of the drug test at Bridgegate was unlikely to have been a false positive and had been sufficiently persuasive at the time to warrant dismissal. There was evidence of repeated incidents of irresponsible conduct at Direct Care before the assault and the Appellant had left without giving notice, thereby leaving service users potentially without adequate cover. The Appellant had admitted his failure to disclose to Lincolnshire he had been dismissed from Bridgegate and though his written evidence about any such declaration to the GSCC had been unclear, he had acknowledged in oral evidence that this was not included in his original application form. He had provided a written explanation subsequently, which the Committee concluded was in response to the letter from the GSCC dated 3rd May 2006.
- The Committee rejected the allegation that the Appellant had asked his previous manager to lie for him in providing a reference. It also found there was insufficient evidence to implicate the Appellant in any way in the supply of cannabis when at Bridgegate. It noted the positive efforts he had made to become a registered social worker but that his positive references pre-dated his dismissals or referred to events prior to dismissal. However, whilst he did not currently satisfy the requirements for registration, the Committee said the positive efforts he had made showed genuine motivation and formed a possible basis for re-application at a later date. It stated that the prospect of future registration "would possibly be assisted by a period of employment in a social care occupation, other than as a social worker, to provide him with the opportunity to demonstrate good character and conduct."
- On 24th July 2007 Mr Skervin appealed against that decision on the grounds that:
- The Appellant's evidence about the circumstances of his dismissal from Peterborough was relatively straightforward. He frankly admitted to the Committee that he had failed to inform his employer that he had a conflict of interest with a service user whose case he was allocated. However, he said the turmoil in his private life had led to panic attacks and made him incapable of working properly. In consequence, he made it clear he felt the manager had behaved unfairly and irresponsibly in denying him time off in these circumstances. In evidence to the Committee he conceded there might also have been concerns about his timekeeping.
- The Appellant gave various explanations for his abrupt departure from Direct Care, saying he had decided to leave the company following an incident involving the restraint of two clients during which he was temporarily blinded by perfume sprayed in his eyes. He left because of his concerns about working with a particular member of staff and told the Registration Committee he no longer wished to work for a company that did not care about its workers safety. As evidenced in written information from Direct Care, he had been repeatedly late, and had failed to attend pre-arranged meetings including training. He failed to attend both meetings arranged to consider the disciplinary issues and was dismissed from his post on 9th December 2004.
- Turning to the applicant's dismissal from Bridgegate following a positive drug test, Dr Fletcher had advised the Committee that passive smoking could, in rare circumstances such as a very confined space, cause a false positive in testing. However, he said this was highly unlikely and would, in any event, produce a much lower concentration in the test result. Furthermore, a laboratory would normally require an individual being tested to indicate any circumstances relevant to the test. The Appellant repeated to us what he had told the Committee, that he had not been tested under laboratory conditions. He continued to insist that he could only have tested positive as the result of passive smoking since he had never been a cannabis user. The text message on his mobile phone was a joke and was not evidence that he was supplying drugs. He accepted the seriousness of the allegations at Bridgegate and regretted his association with a drug user. He told us his shame over this led him to accept his fate and not to challenge the finding at the time despite his innocence.
- The Appellant fully accepted he had been wrong not to disclose to Lincolnshire that he had been dismissed from Bridgegate and in what circumstances. He told the Committee that his deliberate lie had arisen because he was in a dilemma. He felt he had been denied the opportunity to use his DipSW for anything other than a very short period of time at Peterborough where he might still be working, had he been treated better. His desperation had been compounded by unemployment and being refused work once agencies discovered his record. He said he had taken the job at Lincolnshire and filled in the application for registration knowing his employers would eventually find out because two senior staff had to countersign the form. Furthermore, in his desperation to prove himself he had taken a job that involved driving 120 miles every day to work, which also supported his contention that there was nothing wrong with his timekeeping.
- In oral evidence the Appellant sought to explain that he was convinced he had submitted the details of his dismissal from Bridgegate to the GSCC as part of his original application form. He said he had been confused about this at the Committee and had only recalled the true position on reflection. He realised the severity of what he had done, but these events had had a massive impact on his life and in the preceding year he had become very depressed. This period had provided the opportunity for him to reflect on his situation. He said he only had himself to blame for the mistakes he had made and the years he had wasted, but he would not treat an opportunity to prove himself lightly and assured us that nothing similar would ever happen again.
- The Respondents said the Appellant's alternative chronology of events was simply not credible and in giving evidence he had demonstrated a lack of insight into the seriousness of his position.
- The purpose of the legislation is to introduce control and regulation of social workers in the interests of those who require and use their services together with the interests of the community as a whole. The need for full and frank disclosure is made clear by the application form and is fundamental to the process of registration. We accept, as did the Tribunal in CR v GSCC that transparency is vital. The need for full and frank disclosure is fundamental to the process of registration and is a central tenet of the Code of Practice for Social Workers.
- A social worker occupies a position of trust and where a person seeks to hold a position of trust and a regulatory body must be satisfied that criteria are met then he must demonstrate that she has met those criteria and any doubts must be resolved against registration. The conduct of an Applicant in relation to job applications and to the process of the Application to be registered as a social worker are clearly matters that can be taken into account when determining whether the Applicant has demonstrated that he is of good character. Therefore, the information provided by an Applicant to the GSCC is fundamental to this process and the importance of its accuracy is set out clearly in the Application Form.
- We note that the Appellant's application for registration was refused on the grounds that he had failed to show he was of good character and his conduct in relation to his application for registration was evidence of this. We note from the recommendation to the Registration Committee by the Conduct Manager and the final reasons for refusal, that the Appellant's employment history has played a large part in this. In this appeal there was no issue about the Appellant's qualifications or his mental or physical fitness, therefore the sole issue for determination is whether the GSCC and the Committee were wrong in their conclusions about the Appellant's character.
- In reaching our conclusions, we also took account of the Appellant's present character and conduct including what he has said and done since submitting his application for registration to the GSCC. The critical issue here is whether he had learnt any lessons from what had happened and whether he had developed a greater understanding and insight in to the requirements of a being social worker as set out in the Code of Practice. Furthermore, despite these events and his admissions, we considered whether the end result was that he could now be considered somebody of good character and conduct.
- An issue of central importance in this case was the fact that the Appellant had failed to disclose to Lincolnshire the disciplinary issues at Bridgegate, which led to his dismissal for gross misconduct. This was a very serious non-disclosure to an employer, which also raises doubts about any reliance that could be placed upon the Appellant's commitment to the Code of Practice and to the fundamental requirement that a social worker must be honest and trustworthy. The Appellant was undoubtedly desperate to prove himself, but he simply cannot seek to mitigate the seriousness of this issue by saying he thought he could overcome the past by demonstrating his worth to Lincolnshire. He sought to persuade us of his honesty by saying he knew the truth was bound to emerge at some point, but to have imagined he could have maintained his position with Lincolnshire in such circumstances casts considerable doubt on his judgment as well as his understanding of the importance of public confidence in the position of a social worker.
- Throughout the history of his appeal, the Appellant has placed a great deal of reliance upon his contention that the process of the drug test at Bridgegate was flawed in that the positive result was attributable only to passive smoking and there had been no laboratory test to support the view that he had smoked cannabis. The fact remains that, as he accepted, he did not challenge Dr Fletcher's advice to the Committee on this point and his overall evidence on the issue carried a strong element of inherent implausibility. Whilst we had no evidence any laboratory test had ever been carried out and therefore no direct evidence to conclusively show he was taking drugs of any kind, nevertheless we cannot understand why the Appellant did not challenge the finding at the time. As a drugs worker himself, he must have been aware of the conditions for testing. Furthermore, since this was an issue that led to his dismissal, he must also have been conscious of the need to clear his name by demanding that more than a mere dipstick test was used. His failure to comprehensively challenge the disciplinary findings at the time and his suggestion that his response to the positive result showed his integrity is simply not persuasive.
- If the Appellant had only done this, it would have been serious enough, but he compounded the situation by the way in which he dealt with the issue in his concurrent application for registration to the GSCC and subsequently in the hearing before the Committee and in his appeal to the Tribunal. We were particularly struck by the way in which he changed his evidence about what he had submitted with his application form and, therefore, what information he had supplied to the GSCC with regard to his dismissal from Bridgegate.
- In this respect alone, we did not find the Appellant to be a credible witness: we have no doubt he thought he was being honest, but it became clear that he was prepared to try to change and elaborate upon his evidence in order to persuade us of his case. In so doing, he merely served to undermine any impression of honesty: in the confusion about what he had submitted with his original application form and then what he had told the Committee he had given the GSCC he seemed unable to give a straight answer to a straight question.
- In the course of giving oral evidence, the Appellant conceded he had made a number of errors in the way in which he had presented himself and the information he had given. He had undoubtedly made a great deal of effort to become a social worker and clearly still wanted to pursue this career despite his past mistakes. But he also gave the strong impression he felt badly treated in a variety of ways by his past employers and by the GSCC.
- His initial behaviour at Peterborough might well have been explained, at least at the time, by the naivety of a newly qualified social worker under considerable personal pressure and faced with an apparently unsympathetic manager. Nevertheless, the Appellant accepted he had not told his manager about the conflict of interest. He placed great emphasis on the stress he was under at Peterborough and the way in which he had been treated at Direct Care, but even now appears to be unaware, and even dismissive, about the potential impact of his behaviour on client groups or on his colleagues. This demonstrated a lack of insight into the seriousness of the allegations against him on a number of issues.
- He admitted to some past shortfalls in timekeeping but seemed to lack insight into the importance of reliability to colleagues and service users. This lack of insight was also apparent in his attitude to training and we were not impressed by the reasons he gave us for not attending training courses at Direct Care. His response to the need for ongoing training in order to inform practice was wholly insufficient: arguing that martial arts is an appropriate form of training to meet the requirement of Team Teach or good practice on restraint was particularly worrying. Combined with his failure to take advantage of any training to keep his practice up to date since leaving Lincolnshire gave the impression he thought the mere fact of having a DipSW meant he had little or no need to do anything else.
- We find no evidence to suggest that the Appellant has changed sufficiently in his approach and attitudes to indicate that he has learnt enough to overcome these issues. He does not seem to have done anything relevant since his resignation from Lincolnshire and has made no attempt to pursue any voluntary work. His explanation that no-one told him to do so, and in any event he saw no point in doing it if it was not going to lead anywhere, was somewhat unfortunate. The Committee's clear indication that one way of proving himself fit for registration would be to engage in some form of care work seems to have been of no effect. He seemed unable to grasp that his keenness to offer the skills he had so painstakingly acquired to a professional employer in exchange for a salary, but failing to see the advantages either to himself or to others in so doing voluntarily was not likely to give a favourable impression. Judging by his references he has had skills to offer, and certainly the time available to take up a lot of opportunities to redeem himself, but has not done so.
- In many respects the Appellant has acknowledged his mistakes, but he seems unable to understand that he has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour both in his actions and in his responses to the consequences of them. The number of dismissals and their circumstances were a cause for concern, compounded by his subsequent lack of integrity and honesty with respect to the dismissal from Bridgegate. Whatever his remorse, that pattern has continued to some extent into the appeal process itself. There is no doubt that in the face of unfolding events, he has been increasingly desperate to reclaim an opportunity to prove himself, but this has also led him to seek to blame external factors for his predicament. Remorse together with the assurance as to future conduct are not in themselves sufficient to re-establish confidence in the Appellant's professionalism or to overcome the serious issues of integrity and competence raised in this case
- In his past and present conduct, the Appellant has failed to convince us that he understands the crucial importance of maintaining the standards set out in the Code of Practice. He has also failed to persuade us of his integrity, honesty and good conduct and we have no alternative but to conclude that he has not demonstrated he is of sufficiently good character to justify directing that the original decision of the Registration Committee should have no effect.
- As we made clear to the Appellant, our remit does not cover the resolution of complaints or grievances, but it may be helpful to make some final observations on the history and conduct of this matter. The Appellant was particularly aggrieved by the length of time it had taken to process his application and he felt he had not been treated fairly by the GSCC or by a system in which he had not been able to obtain representation at various stages. To a degree, this is understandable in that there is evidence to suggest that even ordinary applications took the GSCC a considerable length of time to process. However, we note the difficulty experienced in obtaining consent from the Appellant to disclosure of records and he must therefore also bear some responsibility for delaying matters.
- There are aspects of the GSCC's approach that could have been improved upon in this case. It seems to us to be particularly important that an applicant who is given leave to make oral submissions to the Registration Committee without the benefit of representation ought in all fairness to be given advance notification of the full case to be answered, including the material advice to be given by the medical adviser. Whether that makes any difference to the outcome is not the point, the issue is one of fairness of procedure. The issue about the relationship between lies and material non-disclosure was not readily apparent in the Respondent's submissions until the hearing and earlier written clarification of this important point might have assisted the Appellant.
- However, our direct criticism is reserved for Messrs Archer and Archer, the Appellant's erstwhile solicitors. In the absence of extraordinary reasons, it is quite unacceptable to have notified the Tribunal by fax at 4 pm on Friday 16 November that, due to funding reasons, it would not be possible to represent the Appellant on the following Monday. We find it very difficult to believe that the firm did not know about the adverse financial position until this very late stage. Furthermore, it appeared that in any event it had not returned the Appellant's file of papers to him in time for the hearing.
- Quite apart from the discourtesy to the Tribunal and to the Respondent and the consequences for the public purse in the inevitable adjournment, this left the Appellant in an impossible position. He had already had experience of having to represent himself before the Registration Committee and the withdrawal of his solicitors at such short notice must have increased his sense of unfairness and his lack of confidence in his ability to deal with his appeal. At the final hearing the Appellant had the benefit of a well-presented Skeleton Argument, scrupulous fairness in the presentation of the Respondent's evidence and considerable assistance to mitigate the difficulties he faced. In the final analysis we do not believe that legal representation would have been able to overcome the obstacles Mr Skervin clearly faced in seeking to persuade us that he was of sufficiently good character and conduct to the point that we would have regarded him as suitable to be registered as a social worker. Nevertheless, those facing serious allegations should have the opportunity to have their case properly presented and tested and public confidence in these processes needs to be maintained: Messrs Archer and Archer should reflect very carefully on whether they could be said to have upheld these principles in their conduct and ultimate withdrawal from this case.
Skervin v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 1076(SW) (17 March 2008)
We dismiss this appeal and confirm the decision of the Registration Committee of the General Social Care Council dated 24th April 2007 to refuse to register the Appellant as a social worker.
Appeal:
This is an appeal by the Appellant under Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the CSA 2000) against the decision of the Respondent to refuse to register the Appellant as a social worker on the register maintained under the CSA 2000 Section 56.
The Respondent initially sent a notification letter to the Appellant on 3rd January 2007 (the notification letter) advising the Appellant that the application would be refused. Following the decision of the Registration Committee on 24th April 2007 to refuse registration on the grounds that the Committee was not satisfied as to the Applicant's good character and conduct as required under Section 58(1)(a) and (3) of the Care Standards Act, the final decision letter was sent to the Appellant on 25 April 2007.
Representation
Miss Morris of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondents, with Ms Rejman of Field Fisher Waterhouse, instructing solicitors and Ms Hollinrake, witness for the Respondents. The Appellant appeared in person, with his father, Mr Skervin, attending the first hearing and Mrs Skervin, his mother, present at the final hearing.
Evidence
The Law
1. An Application for Registration should be made in writing and shall specify each part of the register in which registration is sought and…
(iii) The Applicant shall provide in connection with the Application –
(a) Where the Applicant is a social worker, evidence as to the Applicant's -
(i) Good character as it relates to the Applicant's fitness to practice the work expected of a social worker (including endorsements from an employer…);
"1.4 respecting and maintaining the dignity and privacy of service users
2.1 Being honest and trustworthy;
2.2 Communicating in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way;
2.3 Respecting confidential information and clearly explaining agency policies on confidentiality to service users;
2.4 Being reliable and dependable;
2.5 Declaring issues that might create conflicts of interest;
5.7 not putting him or herself or other people at unnecessary risk;
5.8 not behaving in a way, in or out of work, that would call in to question their suitability to work in social care services.
(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the person to whom the appeal relates;
(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect; or
(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of that person.
The point as to whether the Act permits the Tribunal to impose conditions of its own volition, where no conditions have hitherto existed, has been considered in previous Tribunal cases but has not yet been tested in a higher court. For the purposes of this appeal we accepted that the wording does not appear to provide for a power to impose conditions, but in any event we did not need to consider the issue any further in this appeal.
Burden of proof
Facts
• Several periods as a senior residential care worker with Direct Care Limited ('Direct Care') from 2000 to 2001, 6 months in 2003 after a short period in Australia, then again in 2003, finally being summarily dismissed in December 2004
• A post with Bridgegate Drug Services ('Bridgegate') from 7 July 2003 to 4 August 2004, when he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
• Dismissal from Peterborough having not completed his probationary period, his failure to inform Peterborough about the conflict of interest, and the concerns about his timekeeping. In addition, that after dismissal he had asked his former team manager to lie by providing him with a satisfactory reference;
• Dismissal from Bridgegate having tested positive for cannabis, his failure to provide an appropriate explanation for the allegation about supplying cannabis, and putting the company's integrity and reputation at risk by his conduct;
• Dismissal from Direct Care for irresponsible conduct and his failure to work within the company's terms and agreements;
• Failure to inform Lincolnshire about his dismissal from Bridgegate.
i) The GSCC had wrongly concluded he had not disclosed details of any disciplinary action taken against him by his former employers, Bridgegate Drug Services, in his application for registration;
ii) He had been unable to obtain representation for the hearing before the Registration Committee and felt his submissions were not listened to adequately
In his re-submitted signed appeal form there were additional paragraphs stating his post as Community Support Worker in Lincoln had not been taken into consideration, expressing concern about the delays in processing the original application and requesting support from the GSCC in obtaining a new position.
The Evidence
Tribunal's Findings and Conclusions
Further comments
ORDER
By unanimous decision Appeal dismissed
Ms L Goldthorpe
Ms H Reid
Mr M Jobbins
Date: 17th March 2008