Last February, I wrote about the case of a social worker who had been removed from the register after a very difficult case. In my view, the panel at Social Work England had made significant mistakes, and I engaged a senior barrister, Rory Dunlop (King’s Counsel) to pursue an appeal on my client’s behalf.

Social Work England strongly resisted the appeal, and spent over £25,000 in doing so.

Today, at the High Court in Manchester, my client’s case concluded with a successful appeal against the removal order - they are now free to work as a social worker again!

The judge also ordered that SWE pay my client over £20,000 in legal costs, and SWE now bear a hefty bill for that and their own costs - quite a ‘bonne claque’ for taking out what we say were wholly unwarranted proceedings against my client.

It’s a beautiful thing to see a passionate, committed professional returned back to work after harrowing regulatory proceedings - it is simply sublime when this occurs in proceedings concerning Social Work England (some of those working in professional discipline might say SWE is an entirely detestable regulator: I couldn’t possibly comment!).

Incidentally, SWE and its case examiners were the subject of judicial criticism in another recent case, Meade v Westminster CC & SWE. The tribunal found that in its investigation against a social worker, SWE had discriminated against them on the grounds of her protected beliefs, and they found specifically that two of its case examiners had discriminated against the social worker! One of the discriminating case examiners, Graham Noyce, was found to be aware of a relationship between the referrer and the supposedly “independent” case investigator tasked with the social worker’s case, that was “more than a mere professional acquaintance”.

How are registrants and those who represent them to have confidence in SWE and its disciplinary processes? I certainly have my doubts, and have had since SWE’s inception.