March 2020 |
TSO |
- Temporary Conditions Orders require the compliance of the worker and not the employer and can be imposed even where there is no employer.
|
Refused |
Download |
May 2018 |
Registration |
- Denied a fair hearing.
- The Panel should not have admitted the written statements of witness who were not giving oral evidence.
- Undue weight was placed on those statements.
- Insufficient weight was placed on the pursuer's explanation.
|
Refused |
Download |
May 2018 |
Removal order |
- Panel should not have allowed opinion evidence from 2 senior social workers.
- Breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as removal was disproportionate.
- Excessive delay of 31 months between referral and hearing.
- Failure to ensure a fair hearing and breach of Article 6 as the hearing lasted 10 days over and above the 31 months.
|
Refused |
Download |
February 2018 |
TSO |
- The Panel had misdirected themselves on the question of delay.
- The Panel failed to have regard to paragraph 12 of the Decisions Guidance.
- The Panel failed to take into account whether there was evidence of repetition in terms of paragraph 12.2 of the Decision Guidelines.
|
Upheld |
Download |
September 2017 |
Removal order |
- The Panel failed to give due weight to the factors impacting AF.
- The Panel failed to take account of the fact that the behaviour hadn't been towards service users and there had been no complaints about their work with service users.
- Other registered workers had been guilty of assault and had been dealt with more leniently.
|
Refused |
Download |
July 2015 |
Registration |
- Delay on the part of the Respondents in dealing with the Appellant’s application for registration.
- The interpretation of and findings in connection with, the no case to answer submission.
- The Panel should have adjourned the hearing in order to obtain further information.
- A medical adviser ought to have been present in the proceedings.
|
Refused |
Download |
August 2015 |
Removal order |
- SSSC erred in law by admitting hearsay evidence about a service user.
- SSSC erred in law by admitting the transcripts of text messages and breached Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- By admitting the hearsay evidence AE was denied a fair hearing.
- SSSC acted unreasonably in arriving at the decision to impose a removal order.
|
Refused |
Download |
July 2012 |
Removal order |
- The Panel failed to give adequate reasons for their findings in fact and findings on misconduct.
- The sanction was excessive.
|
Refused |
Download |