When the panel issued its decision, I did have the option to appeal to the Sheriff Court but, to be honest, I really didn’t know what I would appeal on.
The decision itself to have me removed from the register is perhaps fitting for the allegations against me. Examining the SSSC consistency in its ‘verdicts’ was of only passing interest.
My career was at an end through retirement, and the SSSC ruling, though stopping me contributing to the Children’s Panel system, provided what was, essentially, a damning epitaph – that of an incompetent, a liar, on a par with those professional medical practitioners behind multiple child deaths over years, and even cited alongside one of the world’s most notorious mass murderers.
I needed answers as to why this approach was permitted, and whether it was restricted to my case, or applied to everyone’s. And if that was a tactic that would continue to be used in the future.
The questions I, and my family, asked were invariably bounced back, prompting more questions and more research. And still I don’t have answers to the questions I have – not from the SSSC nor even the Scottish Minister within whose remit the matter falls.
This resulted in a 10-point complaint to the SSSC to simply secure an explanation – it might not be the one I wanted, or expected, but at least my work and rationale would surely merit more than being fobbed off with the equivalent of “If you don’t like what we do, go to the Sheriff Court”.
Here was how the complaint started in December 2018...
Rationale behind the complaints
On July 23, 2018, after an 18-month investigation by the Scottish Social Services Council and my attendance at two days of a three-day Fitness to Practise hearing held at Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee, I was removed from the register of social workers after a 28-year career.
The allegations against me were:
1 On three occasions between August 7, 2015, and March 7, 2016, I failed to respond to child protection concerns;
2. On or around March 29, 2016, I sent two contact record forms to my personal email account.
In November 2016 I accepted SSSC conditions in my registration in an attempt to comply with an investigation which the SSSC informed me would last around nine months; I subsequently accepted the SSSC withdrawing conditions on my registration in July 2017; In December 2017 I refused to accept the re-imposition of conditions on registration as they were unachievable and chose to go to the hearing stage.
In mitigation to allegation 1, I stressed no child was ever at risk and my actions occurred when I was forced to absent myself from work through stress, caused by a turbulent working environment where I was subjected to harassment and bullying.
I admitted allegation 2 and, in mitigation, stated this was to protect myself from the environment at Aberlour Child Care Trust.
No witnesses who could support my mitigating circumstances were contacted by the SSSC, the social work teams dealing with the two children and their family in the child protection case were not contacted to establish the impact, if any, of my actions.
My proposal for police involvement on suspect documentary evidence was rejected, my counter allegations of breach of the Data Protection Act were dismissed and a recording which I claimed proved I was being harassed on the day of my first alleged transgression was deemed inadmissible.
The two line managers I cited as responsible for my untenable working conditions, denied all claims and were presented as credible witnesses, with impeccable and unblemished track records, and a caring, compassionate, supportive management style.
I, in turn, was equated with historic medical cases involving multiple children's deaths, midwives who refused to perform vaginal examinations and the subsequent death of a baby and cited alongside a reference to Harold Shipman, responsible for between 200 and 500 murders.
I consider this unacceptable and a vindictive abuse of process, coupled with intimidatory behaviour by the SSSC towards myself and my family.
Substance of the complaints
My Fitness to Practise hearing, came at the end of an 18-month process. In addition to approximately 200 pages of heavily redacted documents, the second day of the hearing also produced 70-plus pages of medical tribunal rulings.
The redaction and editing processes are undertaken and completed by the SSSC presenter without check; it is unclear who sources precedents from the UK’s medical archives, why precedents from social services or Scotland are not sought; I have also been unable to determine who undertakes the psychological profiling of registrants without face-to-face meetings.
These issues prompted many questions about my case and the serious possibility they may be relevant to a majority, if not all, cases.
My family and I were not aware that there was a limit, albeit unspecified, on the questions one could put to the SSSC over its processes. However, we did learn that questions from a multiple sources were deemed a conspiratorial onslaught and thus ruled vexatious. The nature, again unspecified by the SSSC, of inquiries can also rule them vexatious.
A number of these questions, while ineligible under FOI criteria, are contained here.
I think, for example, there is a public interest as to how the SSSC reached the conclusion that the allegations made against me equated to an eight-year-old English High Court case on midwives refusing to perform vaginal examinations. There is also the wider issue as to how appropriate it was for a male SSSC caseholder to present that to an all-male panel. How should I have responded to that?
The questions raised by that single action by the SSSC, which covers 118 points, could easily exceed the number of those lodged with the SSSC over its entire processes.
The complaints within this document are but a small percentage of those which could be lodged if I had the information available.
There was only six months to source the information I required, not to challenge the decision taken by the SSSC that ended my career, but to establish if the abuse of process is endemic.
My concerns are:
1. The SSSC is willing to breach the Data Protection Act 2018 and intimidate those who challenge its operation.
2. The SSSC does not investigate issues but prosecutes registrants. The ‘prosecution’ success rate falls when a registrant has strong legal representation, which may involve a fee for two years’, or
more, representation.
3. A registrant is urged by the SSSC to provide information which is then edited to reinforce the ‘prosecution’ case.
4. Registrants can find themselves out of work for two years or more when under ‘investigation’ which exacerbates the difficulties in funding legal representation.
5. Registrants can find conditions imposed on them during the investigation that terminates a career, even if two years later there is no case to answer.
6. Given that an estimated 84% of workers within the social services profession are female, the SSSC should be able to tell the public on how many occasions female workers face a male SSSC caseholder
and an all-male SSSC-appointed panel.
7. While monitoring every aspect of registrants’ lives, including speeding offences, how well does the SSSC monitor its own staff behaviour?
8. The SSSC guides the panel towards the decision it seeks through inappropriate and irrelevant persuasive precedent, thereby committing an abuse of process by these failing to be reasonably analogous.
9. Is it right, while still within appeal deadlines, outside organisations are informed of decisions taken against you, before you are told such action is being taken?
10. Who provides the psychological analysis on a registrant for the panel, and in the SSSC final written decision? How is this career-defining analysis reached without a single face-to-face meeting?
Introduction
I hereby make a formal complaint regarding the way in which the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), operating from Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee DD1 4NY, manages and administers Fitness to Practise investigations and hearings into the conduct of registrants.
The purpose of this document is to show the SSSC, as the governing body of approximately 200,000 people employed within the social services field in Scotland, is culpable of multiple breaches of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Given the difficulties encountered in sourcing information, and the obstacles placed in the way of determining how widespread these breaches are, as the core basis of this document I have been forced to focus on my own dissatisfaction and grave concern about the handling of an ‘investigation’ into my own professional conduct.
As a previous registrant with SSSC and now a member of the general public, I also express serious misgivings regarding the SSSC pledge that, as the regulatory body, it provides the general public with confidence and assurance that the social care workforce is well equipped and competent to perform a vital and challenging role in society.
It is my assertion that the SSSC is in itself neither equipped nor competent to regulate the social care workforce and it therefore goes without saying that this places the most vulnerable sector of society at increased risk.
From the outset I wish to make it clear that my complaint does not fall within the definition of appeal (the timescale of which lapsed on August 9, 2018) and I accept the SSSC Notice of Decision Removal Order imposed on me, issued on July 23, 2018, and effective from August 19, 2018.
I have accepted the latter because of a complete lack of faith and confidence in the regulatory system, a complete lack of respect for the process which led to that Decision, and the firm belief and knowledge that a judgement reached at the end of said process is of no consequence to me and to people who know me both professionally and personally.
I am also aware, from a response to a Freedom of Information request, that appeals are most unlikely to succeed and any further drain on my own or my family’s emotional and financial resources is unconscionable.
Information within this document was gained through responses to FOI requests (on the limited number of occasions when the SSSC was willing to provide it). This, I believe, demonstrates that said requests by myself and my family were genuine, and made on a need-to-know basis, and not ‘vexatious’ as SSSC has claimed in its attempt to avoid and obfuscate some issues raised.
I accept the Scottish Social Services Council was established under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 as the independent regulator for social workers in Scotland.
In addition, I note that the SSSC has accepted it is a “public authority” in terms of the aforementioned Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and that by virtue of Section 6(1) it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a “Convention Right”, which includes the article 6 right that, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
It is further accepted that if I believe the SSSC had breached article 6, then the SSSC is accountable to the courts and, as such, I could seek redress there.
This, however, is the crux of my complaint. In the judgement of Sheriff Principal RA Dunlop QC, “in the cause Judy Smith against Scottish Social Services Council”, held in Dundee, on March 12, 2015, Sheriff Principal Dunlop stated:
The court is entitled to expect that the Council will have regard to the pursuer’s entitlement to an article 6 compliant process and, while that process includes the right of appeal, in my view it cannot be right that the Council should be careless as to whether its own proceedings are article 6 compliant or not.
My complaint is not that the SSSC is lacking an article 6 compliant process. This I do not dispute. My concern is how that process is applied in individual cases, thus creating a major obstacle for a layman, notwithstanding the statutory time limit, in finding recourse within ‘hard law’ from a higher court.
It is my submission this is a fundamental case of ‘theory versus practice’, and by advocating the former while failing to monitor the latter, the social services governing body avoids accountable governance. It is a fundamental question of who regulates the regulator?
I have no legal background, nevertheless I have made robust attempts to establish whether what I perceive as grievous shortcomings in the application of the SSSC process was unique to my case or endemic and affecting all registrants under investigation.
It is with much regret that I have failed to establish the correlation between the individual and collective, and this submission, while not impacting on the four separate rulings made on my case over 18 months, is being made in the public interest and in the interest of all those registered with their governing body. It is to be hoped a wider audience will be able to provide the information I have sought.
To reiterate, my complaint, therefore, is not with the judicial or appeal processes published and publicly adopted by the SSSC but their internal application, and adaptation, in which there is no recourse other than through the internal SSSC avenues and via the public domain.
It is my submission that the judicial processes as per article 6 were not fairly implemented in my case. More importantly, is what I view as an unfair application adopted across all cases? This raises the question as to whether all SSSC proceedings are article 6 compliant?
The 10 core complaints in this document relate to the following specific areas:
● Breach of Data Protection Act 2018 & SSSC intimidation
● ‘Prosecution’ not investigation
● Subjective and unchecked use of redaction and editing for information
● Length of time it has taken to conclude the process
● The restrictions and conditions on my ability to work
● A discriminatory hearing process
● Actions by the SSSC open to public misinterpretation
● Abuse of process
● Decision to notify Children’s Hearings Scotland
● Subjective and unsubstantiated psychological analysis in the SSSC final written decision
Picture: Gerd Altmann
No comments:
Post a Comment