Social Work England vs Susan Okpani Evans

31 Jan 2025Court Report

High Court extends interim conditions of practice order for social worker amid serious safeguarding concerns

Background of the Case

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Hill DBE, extended the Interim Conditions of Practice Order (ICPO) imposed on Susan Okpani Evans, a social worker, following an application by Social Work England. The ICPO was initially imposed due to serious safeguarding concerns raised during Evans' employment with Haringey Council.

Details of the Allegations

The allegations against Evans originated from her handling of a case involving Family A, where a known child sex offender, referred to as B, had contact with the family. Evans was accused of failing to recognise the risk posed to the children and not conducting proper investigations. These allegations were serious enough to potentially breach professional standards, posing a risk of significant harm and damaging the reputation of the social work profession.

Proceedings and Representation

During the hearing on 30 January 2025, Evans did not appear nor was she represented. The court was satisfied that she was aware of the proceedings, having signed an Acknowledgement of Service form and being in regular correspondence with the Claimant. The court also noted that Evans had previously been represented by a non-legally qualified former colleague, Mr Nana Yabbey-Hagan, in other hearings.

Legal Framework

The application was made under Paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018, allowing the regulator to apply to the High Court to extend an interim order. The court considered the principles set out in General Medical Council v Hiew, focusing on the gravity of allegations, risk of harm, reasons for case delays, and potential prejudice to the practitioner.

Reasons for Extension

The court found the allegations against Evans to be grave, with a high risk of repetition due to a lack of insight or remediation. The necessity of the ICPO was reviewed multiple times, with each review concluding it was essential for public protection and maintaining confidence in the profession. The delays in concluding the case were attributed to significant delays in obtaining necessary material from the Family Court.

Impact on the Defendant

While acknowledging the potential prejudice to Evans, the court noted that the ICPO allowed her to work under certain conditions, mitigating the impact. The court emphasised the need to protect the public from harm arising from Evans' unrestricted practice.

Conclusion and Future Implications

The court extended the ICPO to 3 September 2025, stressing the importance of expediting the case. The decision was made with hesitation, reflecting the court's concern over the prolonged timeline and its impact on Evans' mental health. The court also granted an order for 14 days' notice should a non-party apply to obtain documents, to prevent any risk of jigsaw identification of the family involved.