In Appeal By The Pursuer Under Section 51 Of The Gulation Of Care Scotland Act 2001 Against A Decision Of Defenders To Remove The Pursuer From The Reg V. Scottish Social Services Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff Derek O'Carroll |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 19 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | B1888/10 |
| Published date | 31 July 2012 |
SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE, CENTRAL AND FIFE AT DUNDEE
B1888/10
INTERLOCUTOR OF
SHERIFF DEREK O'CARROLL
in the appeal by the Pursuer under section 51 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 against a decision of the Defender to remove the Pursuer from the register of social workers
AB
PURSUER
against
SCOTTISH SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL, having its head office at Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee DD1 4NY
DEFENDER
DUNDEE 19 July 2012
Act: Creally QC, Advocate
Alt: Carr, Solicitor Advocate
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause; Refuses the appeal; Reserves meantime the question of expenses.
Sheriff O'Carroll
NOTE
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the Pursuer under section 51 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 ("the Act") against a decision of the Defender dated 13 August 2010, and confirmed by letter dated 20 August 2010 ("the decision") to remove the Pursuer from the register for social workers maintained by the Defender under section 44(1)(c) of the Act. The decision was made by a conduct sub-committee ("the committee") which is authorised to make such decisions on behalf of the Defender. The effect of the decision is that the Pursuer is prohibited from practising as a social worker unless and until that decision is reversed by the Court or the Defender reinstates the Pursuer to the register.
2. This is only the second such appeal to have reached the Sheriff Court for decision. I heard the parties at a hearing at Dundee Sheriff Court on 27 March 2012, 12 and 13 June 2012 and then made avizandum.
Statutory background
3. Before dealing further with the background, it is as well to sketch out the statutory provisions, and the material produced by the Defender in terms of that legislation, which form the background to the decision. The Defender is a body established by section 43 of the Act having the functions prescribed by the Act and having a general duty to promote high standards of conduct and practice among social workers and social service workers, including those studying or training to be social workers and social service workers. The distinction between those latter two categories is immaterial for present purposes and I shall use the term social worker to encompass all these categories.
4. One of the functions of the Defender is to establish and maintain a register of social workers: section 44. Unless a person is registered, that person may not practise as a social worker. Section 46 provides that the Defender may grant or refuse an application for registration and if granting the application, impose such conditions as it thinks fit. Unconditional registration requires inter alia that the applicant be of "good character" and that the applicant satisfies requirements as to competence or conduct as the Defender may by rules impose. Section 49 obliges the Defender to make rules determining the circumstances in which, and the means by which, a person may be removed from the register. Section 53 obliges the Defender to prepare Codes of Practice setting out standards to be expected of social workers. Section 57 provides for extensive rule making powers by the Defender in relation inter alia to registration requirements.
5. The relevant conduct rules are the Scottish Social Services Council (Conduct) Rules 2009B ("the conduct rules"). In terms of those rules, allegations of misconduct are dealt with by the committee. The relevant rules as to registration are the Scottish Social Services Council (Registration) Rules 2009B. The relevant Code of Practice was first published in 2002 (and the parties agree that the Pursuer was bound by it). By section 59, the Defender is obliged to exercise its functions in accordance inter alia with the principle that the safety and welfare of all persons who use or are eligible to use care services are to be protected and enhanced.
Background to the decision
6. I now set out the background to the decision of the Defender, so far as is relevant to this appeal.
7. Following a pre-hearing review of the committee on 28 June 2010, by letter of 14 July 2010 the Defender intimated to the Pursuer a Notice of Hearing of the committee to take place in Dundee on 12 and 13 August. That Notice contained the charge against the Pursuer. It was as follows:
"A. You failed to disclose your previous history as a social work student with Robert Gordon University and your employment as a trainee social worker with Aberdeen City Council in your application for registration with the Scottish Social Services Council on the part of the Register for social work students dated 25 July 2008 and in doing so, you acted dishonestly.
B. You failed to disclose to your practice teacher, Bob Leeson, your tutor at the university of Dundee, Richard Ingram, or on the University of Dundee's forms in respect of practice Learning 1 and Practice Learning 2 placements that you had participated on the MSC/PG DIP at Robert Gordon University and that you had been employed as a trainee social worker with Aberdeen City Council and that as such you had previously gained experience of practice and that your studies on a previous social work course were discontinued by Robert Gordon University and in doing so, you acted dishonestly.
The Council considers that this behaviour constitutes misconduct as defined in Rule 2(1) of the [conduct rules] and breaches paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the [Code of Practice]."
8. I pause to give content to certain references made in that letter. Rule 2.1 of the conduct rules defines misconduct as follows: "misconduct means conduct, whether by act or omission, which falls short of the standard of conduct to be expected of a person registered with [the Defender] having particular regard to the [Code of Practice] and the [registration rules]".
9. Section 2 of the Code of Practice provides inter alia as follows: "As a social service worker you must strive to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers. This includes: 2.1 Being honest and trustworthy; 2.2 Communicating in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way;...2.4 Being reliable and dependable..."
10. The Notice of Hearing gave detailed information to the Pursuer as to procedure (including the right of representation) and the powers of the committee (including the power to remove the Pursuer from the Register).
11. Factual background to the decision. Prior to the hearing, the Pursuer and Defender entered into a "joint statement of admissions". That statement, taken together with the two charges, goes some way to explaining the nature of the factual background leading to the charges and the basis for the charges being brought. Essentially, the parties agreed the factual background as follows.
12. The Pursuer was first registered by the Defender in the part of the register for social work students on 18 February 2005. To obtain registration, the Pursuer completed the usual application form provided by the Defender. This was the first application form. At that time, she was a student at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. The course was a degree course intended to lead to a MSc/PG Dip in social work. That is a professional qualification. The course started around 22 September 2004 and ended on 15 June 2006 being the last day of the Pursuer's assessed practice placement. (She did not complete the course: however she was quite sometime later given a post-graduate certificate in social studies as an exit award by the University). At the same time that she was undertaking the degree course, she was employed by Aberdeen City Council on a scheme known as the "fast track scheme". She was employed as a trainee social worker by that Council. Her employment began on 12 July 2004 and ended on 10 July 2006 when she resigned. Because the Pursuer had left the university course, her name was removed from the Defender's register on 27 February 2007 since she was no longer qualified for registration in that part of the register.
13. The Pursuer then successfully applied for a place on a social work degree course, which would lead to an MSc in social work at the University of Dundee. The offer of a place on the course was made around 1 August 2007. The Pursuer took up her place on that course around 15 September 2008.
14. Prior to commencing the course at the University of Dundee, the Pursuer made her second application for registration with the Defender by way of an application form dated 25 July 2008. She was registered without conditions on 1 October 2008.
15. However, in that second application, the Pursuer did not reveal that she had previously been employed as a trainee social worker by Aberdeen City Council. Neither did she reveal that she had undertaken two previous practice learning placements while employed as a trainee social worker. Neither did she reveal those pieces of information during her course on forms provided by the University of Dundee, relating to two "Practice Learning Placements". Furthermore, the Pursuer did not tell her practice teacher, Bob Leeson, about that experience as a trainee social worker or her studies at Robert Gordon University.
16. When applying to the University of Dundee, the Pursuer disclosed that she had a postgraduate certificate qualification and that she had undertaken some assessed practice during the postgraduate certificate.
17. The Pursuer was suspended from her practice learning placement at Perth and Kinross Council around 20 April 2009 after the University of Dundee learned of the Defender's ongoing investigations concerning the matters referred to in the previous paragraphs.
18. I pause to note that it is therefore apparent that as between the Pursuer and Defender, much of the essential facts are agreed. In short, as regards part A of the charge, while there is agreement that the second application for registration was made, there is no clear admission that she failed to disclose her previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial