In the First-tier Tribunal	

Between:		
Stewart Ford
Appellant
V

General Social Care Council
          Respondent

[2011] 1867.SW-SUS

DECISION

Before: Tribunal Judge Meleri Tudur
	   Mr David Braybrook (Specialist member)
	   Ms Margaret Diamond (Specialist member)

Hearing held on the papers at Mowden Hall, Darlington on 18th March 2011.

APPEAL

1.	Mr Ford, (the Appellant) appeals under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the General Social Care Council (“the Respondent”) made on the 5th November 2011 to impose an interim suspension order upon his registration as a Social Worker.

The Law
2.	By virtue of section 56 of the Care Standards Act 2000 the Respondent maintains a Register of Social Workers.

3.	Section 59 of the Act allows the Respondent to determine the circumstances by which an individual social worker can be sanctioned  and removed from the Register.  The relevant rules are the General Social Care Council (Conduct) Rules 2008.  The Rules also determine the circumstances by which an individual social worker may be made the subject of an Interim Suspension Order by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee after the making of a complaint but before the final determination of the case at a conduct Committee Hearing.

4	When considering an application by the Respondent for an ISO, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee must decide under paragraph 5(1) of the rules whether the making of such an order is: 
a)	necessary for the protection of members of the public;
b)	otherwise in the public interest;
c)	in the interests of the Registrant concerned.

5.	It is not for the Preliminary Proceedings Committee to decide the facts of the case.  The Committee’s role is limited to deciding on the material available to it and in accordance with paragraph 5(1) whether an ISO should be imposed.

6.	An appeal against a decision of the Committee lies to the First Tier Tribunal by virtue of section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

7.	On an appeal the tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect.

Facts
8.	The Appellant was employed by Essex County Council as a Social Worker working with adults from February 2010.  He was unable to take up his post until a clear Enhanced CRB check was received in July 2010.

9.	On the 5 august 2010, following a dawn raid at his home, the Appellant was arrested on suspicion of three serious offences of assault, attempted abduction of a girl at knifepoint and the taking of indecent images of a woman at the local swimming baths.

10	On the 1 October 2010, the Appellant was further arrested for having extreme pornographic images on his personal computer.

11.	The Appellant was bailed in respect of all four allegations until January 2011.

12.	On the 5 November 2010, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee conducted a hearing to consider the imposition of an ISO.  The Appellant was represented at the hearing.

13.	The Committee did not make any finding of fact in relation to the allegations but concluded that it was in the public interests to make an ISO for six months on the basis that such an order was necessary for the protection of members of the public and otherwise in the public interests.

14.	On the 8 December 2010, the Appellant appealed to the Care Standards Tribunal under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

15.	The Appellant was subsequently further bailed until 11 March 2011.

16.	The Appellant was subsequently released from his police bails in respect of the three offences for which he had been arrested on the 5 August 2010 due to lack of evidence against him.

17.	The Appellant remains on police bail for the fourth offence of having extreme pornography on his computer and is due to return to Southend Police Station on the 24 June 2011.

18.	On the 1 October 2010, the Appellant was suspended from his work at Essex County Council until the 28 February 2011 and it was recommended that his probationary period was not confirmed and that his employment was terminated.

EVIDENCE
19.	The Tribunal had in evidence before it the Notice of Appeal and supporting documents, the Respondent’s response to the appeal and a transcript of the original Preliminary Proceedings Committee hearing and decision.  The Tribunal also received a witness statement from Detective Sergeant 2895 Michelle Catherine Long, based at the Southend Police Station with the Serious Crime Team. 

20.	In her statement DS Long explained that the allegations in respect of the first three arrests were no longer being pursued against the Appellant and that two of the victims had failed to identify him in identification parades.

21.	In relation to the allegation of extreme pornography, she stated that images graded as “extreme pornography” were found on the computer used by the Appellant and that they consisted of 23 images of female corpses with items inserted into their vaginas and 50 video clip images of females engaging in sexual acts with animals.

22.	DS Long expressed her belief based on the evidence that the Appellant will be charged with an offence of possession of indecent images.  The final decision to charge the Appellant with the alleged offences rests with the Crown Prosecution Service.

Tribunal’s conclusions
23.	In view of the fact that the first three offences are no longer being pursued by the Police, these are no longer relevant to our considerations and have not influenced our decision in any way.

24.	We have considered the appeal on the basis of the remaining issue of the extreme pornography allegedly found on the Appellant’s computer.

25.	The allegations as described amount to criminal conduct and to serious allegations of extreme pornography.  We consider that public trust and confidence in the social work profession must be ensured and upheld and accept the submission of the Respondent that every social worker has a personal responsibility to maintain the highest professional standards as representative of the profession.  The public must be able to trust that any person whose name appears on the register of social workers is deemed suitable to work with persons who are in need of support and that they will act appropriately within both their professional and personal capacities.

26.	We have concluded that given the seriousness of the allegation made against the Appellant, the ISO was a proportionate and legitimate response by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee.

27.	The decision is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

28.	This is the unanimous decision of us all.

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.  The decision of 5th November 2010 is confirmed.

Meleri Tudur Tribunal Judge
David Braybrook, Specialist Member
Margaret Diamond, Specialist Member

28 March 2011