[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Phillips v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 1197(SW) (13 May 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2008/1197(SW).html Cite as: [2007] EWCST 1197(SW)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Phillips v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 1197(SW) (13 May 2008)


 


PAUL THOMAS PHILLIPS

-v-

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2007] 1197.SW

-Before-

MS MELANIE LEWIS (Nominated Chairman)

MR RAY WINN (Specialist Member)

MR TIM GREENACRE (Specialist Member)

DECISION

Heard at Pocock Street

Heard on 8 May 2008

Appeal

1. Mr Phillips (the Appellant) appeals under Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (CSA 2000) against the refusal of the General Social Care Council (the Respondent) to register him as a social worker on the Register maintained under Section 56 (1) of the Act.
2. Section 58 CSA 2000 governs the grant of registration. It was the Respondent's case that the Appellant could not satisfy the requirements set out in section 58 (1) (b), due to his longstanding mental health problems. He could not satisfy the condition under Rule 4 (3) (iv) of the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 that he was competent to be registered as a social worker due to his lack of employment history and relevant training.
3. Section 58 CSA 2000, in relevant part provides as follows :-

'(1) If the Council is satisfied that the applicant -

(a) Is of good character;

(b) Is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in any part of the Register to which his application relates; and

(c) satisfies the following conditions,

It shall grant the application, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit; and in any other case it shall refuse it.

(2) The first condition is that

(a) In the case of an applicant for registration as a social worker -

(i) He has successfully completed the course approved by the Council under Section 63 for persons wishing to become social workers;

(ii) He satisfies the requirement of Section 64; or

(iii) He satisfies any other requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers.

(b) …..(applies to social care workers)

(3) The second condition is that the applicant satisfies any requirements as to conduct and competence, which the Council may by rules, impose.

(4) …

4. The burden of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate that on a balance of probabilities that he is a person who meets the requirements of Section 58.
5. The Appellant did not indicate in his appeal paper whether he would prefer an oral hearing or for his appeal to be determined on the written evidence alone. His Honour Judge Pearl made directions on 25 February 2008 indicating that the case would be heard on the papers unless the Appellant indicated otherwise within 10 working days. He has not done so and accordingly the hearing was convened without either party present or represented and determined on the papers.

Facts

6. On 5 March 2005 the Appellant submitted an application/registration as a social worker. In response to the question at page 19 on the application form asking 'Do you have a physical or mental health condition that may affect your ability to undertake your work in social care?' the Appellant did not include any information about a health condition.
7. The Respondent contacted the Appellant on 25 May 2005 to request further employment information. The Appellant's reply where he referred to 'feeling out of things' and being depressed alerted their attention to possible health conditions. The Appellant completed a Self-Assessment of a described health condition. He said he had suffered from depression.
8. The facts that subsequently emerged were that the Appellant graduated in 1973 with a BA (Hons) in Psychology. He obtained a Certificate of Qualification in Social Work (CQSW) in 1977. Between 1977 and 1983 he had had 4 short periods of employment as a social worker. None of those exceeded 8 months. His last stated period of employment was in 1988, at a Butlins Holiday Camp, where he had a temporary job in the kitchens.
9. With the Appellant's consent the Respondent approached his GP Dr Vithlani who disclosed that the Appellant suffered from schizo-effective disorder and was on anti-psychotic medication. Dr Vithlani went on to suggest that the consultant psychiatrist Dr Brits was approached as he was best placed to advise the Council of the Appellant's suitability to undertake work as a social worker.
10. The Appellant's current consultant psychiatrist Dr Kullu eventually gave such advice. Dr Kullu clarified that his report dated 27 February 2006 was in fact dated 27 February 2007. He confirmed that the Appellant suffered from chronic schizophrenia and first had contact with the Mental Health Services in 1995, although he had had no in-patient admissions since the mid 1990's. In response to specific questions posed by the Respondent on the medical report form, Dr Kullu stated that the Appellant had superficial insight into his illness and treatment plan and that his chronic mental illness was likely to affect his cognitive abilities. The nature of his illness was chronic and relapsing.
11. Dr. Kullu also stated that the Appellant had a pre-occupation with getting himself back to full time work, which was unrealistic. The Appellant had applied for social work jobs previously and had not been successful at interview. There was no evidence about those applications before us. At Section E he recorded that in his judgement the Appellant was suffering from a condition likely to limit the range of social work tasks that he could undertake, which were likely to interfere to some extent with his ability to work safely in social work and that the Appellant was suffering from condition(s) making him unfit for social work.
12. It also emerged that the Appellant was living in supported housing and it seems had been for some years.
13. In the Grounds of Appeal the Appellant stated that schizophrenia was "only a label" but submitted no other psychiatric evidence to challenge the view of Dr. Kullu. He stated that he had attended social work conferences in 2006 and earlier courses in particular in 1998. He provided no confirmation of that.
14. The Respondent investigated the Appellant's references. The application form was verified and endorsed by Mr Robin Hedderly and counter-signed by Dr Ronald Walton. In subsequent correspondence with the Respondent, Dr Walton on 27 April 2005 confirmed that because it was some time since the Appellant had been employed as a social worker he had had difficulty obtaining employer endorsement and had therefore approached him. He confirmed that he had not had close contact with the Appellant but had been in touch with him from his student days. He therefore couldn't pass any detailed comment upon his employment but 'could confirm that his personal integrity and commitment to social work values was totally in accord with the expectation of the Council'. His personal view accorded with what the Appellant had also said, that he would need support and training.
15. Following the decision of the Registration Committee on 18 September 2007 the Respondent as he was bound to do so under the Regulations sent Mr Hedderly a copy of their decision. In a detailed email Mr Hedderly set out that he had had no contact with the Appellant since he had left Newcastle University in 1973 save for a brief meeting at a conference approximately 15 years earlier. He had explained to the Appellant during a telephone conversation in 2006 that he would be unable to act as a referee, had no knowledge of his work and had never acted as a referee for him. He had not counter-signed the Appellant's application form; indeed he had been out of the country for 2 years. We have seen the signature of Mr Hedderly and it looks remarkably like the Appellant's handwriting. All the Appellant's documents are in manuscript.
16. The Respondent was further concerned by the tone of some of the Appellant's correspondence, all of which was included in the bundle, which we read. The Appellant referred to irrelevancies in his application such as his support for political parties. Other references were more bizarre and totally irrelevant, stating places that he had visited. Quite inappropriately he included jokes in his correspondence.

Statement of Issues

17. The Respondent requested that in determining the appeal the Tribunal considered the following issues. Whilst not limiting ourselves to this list we have found it relevant and helpful.

(i) Did the Appellant fully disclose all relevant medical information to the General Social Care Council about his health when applying to register on the Social Care Register in March 2005?

(ii) The Appellant suffers from chronic schizophrenia. Does the Appellant have sufficient insight into his illness?

(iii) Is the Appellant's illness likely to impact upon him as a social worker?

(iv) Will the Appellant be able to comply with Section 5.7, the Codes of Practice of Social Care Workers, which requires that social workers must not put themselves or any other people at unnecessary risk?

(v) Has the Appellant provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the General Social Care Council as to his competence to practice as a social worker? In particular, has the Appellant provided sufficient evidence of his employment, experience or training as a social worker?

(vi) With reference to his correspondence to the General Social Care Council has the Appellant demonstrated that he communicates in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way, as required by Section 2.2 of the Codes of Practice of Social Care Workers? Has he demonstrated that he does not behave in a way that could call into question his suitability to work in social care services, as required by Section 5.8 of the Codes of Practice of Social Care Workers?

(vii) Were the Registration Committee of the General Social Care Council wrong to determine that the Appellant did not satisfy them that he meets the requirements of conduct and competence under Section 58 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

Findings

18. The Tribunal concludes that the Appellant's mental health issues are so pervasive and longstanding that it was wholly relevant to disclose it on his application.
19. In his grounds of appeal the Appellant referred to schizophrenia being no more than a label. This is an unrealistic appreciation by the Appellant of his condition. This serves to underline the unchallenged conclusion reached by Dr Kullu that the Appellant had only superficial insight into his illness.
20. The Appellant has a recognised qualification in social work. Unfortunately it appears that due to his mental illness he has not been able to work in any capacity at all since 1988 and in no professional capacity as a social worker since 1983. This causes us to conclude that the Appellant would not be able to comply with Section 5.7 of the Code of Practice. It is not every mental health condition, which would preclude somebody from working as a social worker, but the Appellant's mental health issues are so pervasive and longstanding that we have no hesitation in reaching a conclusion that the Appellant is not mentally fit to work as a social worker.
21. The Appellant has been unable to work as a social worker since 1983. He has provided no evidence to support his assertion in the Grounds of Appeal that he has attended conferences and has written academic papers that have appeared in journals. He cannot meet the requirements of competence evidenced by recent employment and training.
22. We have carefully considered the correspondence that has passed between the Appellant and the Respondent. From this we conclude that there is evidence of the Appellant's inability to communicate appropriately. The Appellant has diverted into matters, which are totally irrelevant to the matters being communicated about. This underlines Dr Kullu's comment about the Appellant's lack of cognitive ability.

Conclusion

23. In the light of the facts the Appellant has failed to satisfy us that he can meet the requirements set out in section 58 CSA for registration as a Social Worker, as he hasn't established that he is mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is:

APPEAL DISMISSED

Melanie Lewis

Nominated Chair

Ray Winn

Tim Greenacre

Date: 13^th May 2008