We are often asked why it is that our Conduct Committee can find facts in cases that have been dropped by prosecuting authorities or those where the individual was found not guilty in court.
In a recent case a registrant was removed from our register after being found to have abused children. The facts were found proven in a subsequent family court proceeding. Our committees use the civil standard of proof – that is, they are looking for facts to be proved based on the balance of probabilities. A fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened. This is in contrast to the criminal courts where facts need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is also possible that an individual may be found not guilty of a criminal act, but the context in which the act was alleged to have taken place gives rise to concern. An example would be a social worker cleared by the courts of assaulting a user of services during a visit to her flat. However, during the visit the social worker brought the service user wine despite knowing that she had an alcohol addiction and such an occurrence would raise seriousquestions over the social worker’s suitability to practise.
Conversely, some ask why we need a hearing where facts have been proved in the courts. For instance, recent cases have involved social workers struck off after being convicted ofstealing, or obtaining by deception, significant sums of money. Our reason for taking these cases forward is public protection and wider public interest. The Conduct Committee is not looking at whether the social worker broke the law, as the court is, but assessing if they are still safe to work with people who use services. The public is entitled to assume that anyone on the register is not only trustworthy but also committed to the standards laid out in the Code of Practice. Our hearings test whether that is the case, and if not we must take action to address this.
Conduct Hearings |
Ten social workers have been sanctioned by the GSCC’s conduct committee since September after they were found to have committed misconduct and breached the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers. Mr Douglas Makey was removed after he was found to have abused two girls, aged 9-10 and 10-12 at the time, at the children’s home he worked in. Ms Julie Andrews was removed following a conviction for obtaining over £25,000 by deception. Mrs Lorraine Brimelow was suspended from practice for six months after she removed a child from a foster carer without lawful authority or reasonable excuse and took the child to her own home. Mrs Rosalind Shaw was removed after being found to have committed misconduct including; failing to assess service users, failing to report allegations of abuse, failure to handle confidential patient information safely and failure to complete case recordings. Mr Paul Collett received a two year admonishment (a mark next to his name on the register) after being found to have conducted a video interview of a child despite a court order prohibiting this. Mr X, whose name was not disclosed to protect the identity of a child, was removed after being found to have sexually abused the daughter of his partner over a six year period. Mrs Lynne Greenwood was removed after being convicted of stealingover £50,000 in cash from a charity she worked for. She was given an 11 months suspended prison term. Craig McLoughlin was removed after offering whisky to a client he helped through detox. Mr Michael Bird was removed after being found to have used a hidden camera to secretly film women in an intimate manner without their knowledge. Ms C was removed after having been found to have used heroin and methadone whilst employed as a social worker and for misleading a County Court about injuries to her daughter. |
