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 >> Smith v General Social Care Council [2005] EWCST 606(SW) (19 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2008/606(SW).html
Cite as: [2005] EWCST 606(SW)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- This is an application brought by the Respondent to strike out the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Respondent dated 7th November 2005 to refuse her application for registration on the register of social workers. The decision of the Respondent was made on the grounds that she does not hold one of the qualifications as set in Schedule 1 of the 2005 Rules.
- The application to strike out is brought under Regulation 4A on the grounds that the appeal lies outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and/or it is otherwise misconceived. Although not expressly stated, I treat the application also on the grounds as set out in Regulation 4A(1)(d), namely that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.
- At the hearing on 14th March 2008, Mrs Smith appeared before me supported by her husband. Ms Bovey represented the Respondent.
- Mrs Smith was awarded a Postgraduate Diploma in Social Study from the University of Edinburgh on 26th October 1968.
- The appeal was stayed for a period of time, in order to await the decision of the High Court in The Queen on the Application of Janet Sivills v GSCC [2007] EWHC 2576 (Admin) which is binding on me.
- Paragraph 43 of Jackson J's decision sets out the decision of the Court on the interpretation to be placed on Schedule 1. He says: "Properly construed, the 2005 Rules contain a comprehensive list of university qualifications and training courses in the UK which satisfy the training requirements identified in section 58(2)(a)(iii) of the 2000 Act. Any UK applicant who has obtained one of those university qualifications or completed one of those training courses satisfies the training requirements of the Act. Any UK applicant who has not obtained one of those qualifications or completed one of those training courses does not satisfy the training requirements of the Act."
- The human rights arguments advanced in the hearing in Sivills were dismissed by the Judge.
- In the light of the decision in Sivills, the Appellant was written to by the Tribunal and she was asked whether she wished to withdraw her appeal. By email dated 17th January 2008, she replied to say that she did not wish to withdraw. She wrote: "Having worked as a social worker throughout my life, I would like the Judge to be aware of my case, whilst I accept it is legally weak."
- The strike out application was therefore considered by way of an oral hearing.
- Mrs Smith told me that at the time she did her social work qualification, that this was acceptable for practising in social work. She submitted to me that the courses on offer today do not have as much practical experience as she had at that time. Mrs Smith has worked in the field all her life; with Norfolk County Council, the Oxford Diocese, and Hampshire County Council. She said that she has particular experience in the adoption field.
- In addition to her own circumstances, Mrs Smith raised issues relating to the retrospective nature of the legislation, and to human rights issues especially drawing on comparisons she wished to make with people coming from abroad with overseas qualifications. She submitted that the decision to refuse her registration was unreasonable and unjust.
- The Appellant in this case has given a lifetime to working in the social care and social welfare field. Her record is exemplary.
- However, this Tribunal has no discretion. It must apply the law. The law is as laid down in the Regulations. These Regulations have now been the subject of interpretation by the Tribunal in JS [2005] 553.SW; RH [2005] 559.SW; Guskov [2005] 600.SW, and Tariq Khan [2006] 733.SW. Whilst none of these cases are binding on me, they are of course of persuasive authority. JS however was the subject of High Court litigation, and the Judgement in that case is binding on me.
- Notwithstanding any sympathy I may feel for the Appellant in this case, I am bound to apply the interpretation of the law as set down by Jackson J. Accordingly, the Appeal has no "reasonable prospect of success", and I must accordingly strike out the appeal on those grounds.
- My decision to strike out this appeal was given to the parties after the hearing, and I informed the parties that I would provide a written decision in accordance with Regulation 23(2). Time with respect to any application for the determination to be set aside under Regulation 4A(4) runs from the date on which notice of this determination is sent to the Appellant. Given that the Appellant has had an opportunity to present her case in person, the Appellant should be advised that any application to set aside the decision to strike out has no reasonable prospect of success.
- Costs: The Respondent has indicated that is seeks an Order for Costs. I invite the Respondent, within ten working days from the date it receives this Decision, by way of a formal application, to set out why it considers that the Appellant has acted unreasonably in conducting these proceedings, and to provide a revised Schedule of Costs incurred. The Appellant will then be provided with ten working days in which to respond to this application. If no formal application is made within the time scale as set out, there shall be No Order as to Costs.
Smith v General Social Care Council [2005] EWCST 606(SW) (19 March 2008)
STRIKE OUT APPLICATION
APPEAL STRUCK OUT
His Honour Judge David Pearl
President
19th March 2008.