England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Solomon Beckford v General Social Care Council [2007] 1154(SW) (07 October 2008)

SOLOMON BECKFORD

-v-

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2007] 1154.SW

-Before-

Ms Melanie Lewis

(Nominated Chairman)

Mr Richard Beeden

Dr Jill Low

REVIEW APPLICATION

1. In an application dated 4 July 2008 the Respondent applied to the President for a review of the Decision dated 27 June 2008, which dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the GSCC Conduct Committee to remove the Appellant from the Register following findings of misconduct. The GSCC did not seek to alter the decision, only to amend the reasons for the decision by way of corrections, so that it was accurate in all respects. By further letter dated 16 September 2008 the Respondent confirmed that that remained their decision. They sought to have the decision varied by certificate in order to correct what it considered to be obvious errors in the decision. They confirmed the matters relating to Part 9 of the Formal Allegations were no longer being pursued by the GSCC as part of the review application. That was the only ground that the Tribunal had not found proved.
2. By letter dated 8 July 2008 the Appellant also applied for a Review but he invited the Tribunal to set aside the decision and to order a re-hearing.
3. Pursuant to the Directions issued by the President on 19 August 2008 we sit as a newly constituted Tribunal, it not being practicable to reconvene the original panel.
4. The Respondent seeks review under Regulation 25 (1) (c) Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal regulations 2002: that there was an obvious error in the decision. Our powers on review are set out in paragraph 26 (1) (a) : to set aside or vary the decision by certificate signed by the Chairman and s. 26 (1)(b) substitute such other decision as we think fit or order a re-hearing before the same or a differently constituted Tribunal.
5. Pursuant to Regulation 29 (3) clerical mistakes in any documents recording the decision of the Tribunal or a direction or decision of the President or the nominated Chairman, or errors arising in such documents from accidental slips or omissions may at any time be corrected by the Chairman or, as the case may be, the President, or nominated Chairman by means of a certificate signed by him.
6. We considered:-

(i) The decision of the Tribunal dated 27 June 2008;

(ii) The letter from the Respondent dated 4 July 2008;

(iii) The letter from the Appellant dated 8 July 2008;

(iv) The Appellant's additional submissions dated 12 September 2008;

(v) The Respondent's additional submissions dated 16 September 2008.

Where the Respondent cross-referred to a specific piece of written evidence, we checked the hearing bundle for ourselves to confirm the accuracy of that assertion.

7. The Respondent sets out what he says are obvious errors in the decision.
8. In his response dated 8 July 2008 the Appellant does not specifically address the points raised by the Respondent, save that he appears to accept that dates are incorrectly recorded at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the decision. The Appellant asserts that the Tribunal reached the wrong conclusion as it failed to take into consideration Worcestershire County Council's (WCC) failure to follow its own policies and procedures and the GSCC Code of Practice. In short the Appellant should not have been sent out on the visit that formed part of the reasons for the misconduct finding. Further in relation to that key visit, the Tribunal had given inadequate consideration to the evidence in preferring the evidence of Suki Bahd Social Work Assistant and not taking into consideration that 'B' was already aware that 'A' was planning to move into a refuge. The Appellant amplified his case in his later submissions dated 12 September 2008. Any error he had made or inaccuracy on his part in recording his employment history was due to inaccurate recall exacerbated by having documents stolen from his house. Further the Tribunal had failed to consider that Paulsoff Company was not the Appellant's employer. The findings the Tribunal made were so unreasonable no reasonable Tribunal could have found them. He suggests the findings of fact on crucial issues relied on facts that neither party asserted. As such the judgement was so flawed it couldn't be rectified, except by re-hearing. He then set out the background as he saw it at some length.
9. The Respondent submitted that the issues raised by the Appellant, were not matters that fell within the terms of Regulation 25 of the Tribunal Regulations. The Appellant's reasons did not identify obvious errors in the reasons of the decision itself but rather to contend that certain matters were either not taken into account at all by the Tribunal or were not sufficiently taken into account. He was saying that the decision was wrong on the basis of alleged irrationality/unreasonableness, which was not a ground of review but might be a ground on which to make an application for judicial review Also, the Appellant had a right to appeal the decision on the point of law pursuant to Section 9 (6) of the Protection of Children Act 1999, but did not do so.
10. The Respondent identified 19 obvious errors in the decision. We considered each individually, decided whether they could be described as irregularities or obvious errors and then weighed whether the decision was so fundamentally flawed that it could not stand

Conclusion

11. Having carefully looked at the application for review and additional submissions by the Appellant, we find ourselves in agreement with the Respondent. They are fundamentally no more than disagreements with the decision reached by the Tribunal. The Appellant seeks to argue that the Tribunal did not properly weigh the evidence. We are clear that the Appellant's remedy is either in making an application for judicial review or appeal on a point of law. We have however actively considered whether the decision, due to the number of obvious errors and other matters set out below is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot stand and there must be a re-hearing.
12. It is correct that there are a number of obvious errors in the decision, some of which are clearly clerical mistakes of the sort that could be corrected under Regulation 29, the so-called 'slip rule'. These included for example incorrectly recording the date of decision of the GSCC Conduct Committee as 4 and not 3 October 2007, describing Suki Bahd as an Assistant Social Worker rather than a Social Work Assistant.
13. There are other matters raised by the Respondent which we do not agree are obvious errors. We would describe them as a further clarification and some are style points. Points, which fall into the first category, are at paragraph 1 where it states that the Appellant resigned in December 2005. The Respondent points out that the appellant handed in the letter of resignation on 3 December 2005 but it did not take effect until 2 January 2006. Nothing turns on that and we do not amend the decision. Conversely, having checked we do not agree that the Grounds of Appeal as recorded in the decision are a direct quote. They are substantially the same but not absolutely the same and therefore it is not appropriate to put them in quotation marks as the Respondent suggests.
14. We are satisfied having considered the Formal Admissions made by the Appellant in the Schedule dated 14 February, that they are incorrectly recorded in paragraph 6 of the decision. The Tribunal seems to have reversed the order and recorded those allegations that were still challenged. We are satisfied that this was an obvious error and may be corrected by varying the reasons. The Tribunal's decision did not turn on what matters of fact were or were not admitted by the Appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision was fundamentally flawed on that basis.
15. With regard to paragraph 11, we are satisfied that what the Tribunal recorded is not a faithful reproduction of the file note of Suki Bahd, which we have considered. Again, this can be dealt with by way of a variation.
16. The Respondent challenges the Tribunal's recording of the evidence in paragraph 13, when Joan Woodley, Social Worker, interviewed the Appellant and Suki Bahd. We have considered Ms. Woodley's statement at page 182, volume 2. We are satisfied that both the matters recorded and the revised version of events sought by the respondent are correct. This point therefore, cannot be said to be an obvious error.
17. At paragraph 18 the Tribunal recorded the Appellant's claims made to Joan Woodley, of his experience in training in both domestic violence and working with children. In effect the paragraph is not as detailed as the Respondent would have liked. The Tribunal omitted to refer to Ms Noctor interviewing the Appellant about the visit on 19 October 2005 and various statements made by the Respondent about the Appellant's past experience. Those are omissions: not obvious errors. They don't fundamentally affect the reasons for the decision and we make no change.
18. Without listening to the tape of the evidence it is not possible for us to agree that the way that the evidence is recorded in paragraph 23 is an obvious error. The Respondent seeks clarification of Paragraph 24, as to whether the reference in the last sentence is that from the Unison representative to "B" dated 21 June 2007. Again we cannot conclude that that is not an obvious error as we have not seen that document.
19. With regard to paragraph 25 it is clear from the statement of Maggie Forbes (volume 2, pages 439-440) that the Appellant sought but did not as the Tribunal recorded obtain employment with SWISS International. We conclude that is an obvious error. Again the Tribunal's conclusions do not turn on that point.

Order

The decision of the Tribunal dated 27 June 2008 is amended by certificate.

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated Chairman)

Date: 7^th October 2008