Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good Morning and welcome to DAY 1 of the two-day discontinuance hearing of Social Work England (SWE) and Westminster Council (WC) against a social worker, who we refer to as RM.

The tribunal is fully remote and we expect to start at 9.30AM.

#OpenJustice

Originally this was a fitness to practice tribunal for RM, but on 13th Oct, SWE changed course and 'the allegations are now subject to an application to be discontinued in full'.

Further details on this here: ebswa.org/post/social-wo……

Once the hearing has begun, the submissions by Sarah Phillimore Counsel for RM will be made available at:
ebswa.org/post/social-wo…

It's fair to say this is unchartered territory for TT and although we have permission to tweet, we can't predict what may be conducted in private or the structure of the proceedings, so please bear with us.

Abbrevs:

DCH - Discontinuance hearing
ICE - Independent case examiner
FTP - Fitness to practice
FTPH - Fitness to practice hearing

Participants:
RM - Social Worker whose FYPH this is
SWE - Social Work England
SP - Sarah Phillimore, Barrister for RM
HP - Hearing panel
Adj = Adjudicator

Non participants:
MM - Mermaids
FPFW - Fair Play for Women
WPUK - Women's Place UK

Other:
GI - Gender Identity
GC - Gender Critical
BITWB - 'Born In The Wrong Body'
SD - Self Declaration
WORIADS - Worthy of respect in a democratic society

We don't know the counsel representing SWE and WC yet but as soon as the proceedings begin, we'll be able to ascertain this and inform you accordingly.

We've been informed there is a slight delay due to pre hearing discussions. We will be with you as soon as we gain access to the session.

We can confirm the hearing is now due to start at 10AM, we are also now aware that WC is not involved in this DCH, it is SWE only.

We now have access but currently camera angle issues are being discussed. We can now see that Counsel for SWE is Robin White (RW)

Adj: good morning and this is a DCH for RM. Before we begin there's procedural matters: have number of observers and devices must be switched off and no recording. Keep mics on mute and remind that Panel can exclude ant party that disrupts. My name is Gill Mullen and the chair.

(The panel introduces themselves, a lay social worker, then a hearings officer and RW introduction and assistant Sophie Sharp (SS). SP introduces herself and client.)

Adj: the panel proposes to proceed with preliminary matter as to whether new material available. Miss white can you comment?

RW: seems sensible, understand new evidence/info, we're u to find that leads us into a thicket and directions for further hearing especially re discontinuance hearing. Don't intend to go beyond case you've got and I'll indicate where new info is if you ask.

Then hopefully you find grounds of discontinuance and hearing won't last long.
Adj: SP?
SP: happy to deal with that. Appreciate today is not the day to talk about how SWE have conducted themselves. But one safeguarding matter I need to raise.

Adj: please to continue Miss White
RW: take you to doc dated 7th Oct and might look back to SP issue she raised. SWE relies on this information and nothing else. Three lumps of new info. Page 5.

RW: I think u had it discussed that what we decided to do vetween me and SP, we refer to RW as E for Echo. First of 3, You'll see E had Facebook shots, you've been provided with full content of posts, plainly new info.
Then page 8.

RW: page 8, para 48, about her day to day practice, that was NOT material before case examiners. You will have seen SWE relied on evidence and we've listed that extensively in subs. That's the new info not available to case examniers.

Substantial and significant and justifies discontinuance and I said I would be brief.
SP: given p7blic interest in this matter I hope the panel will let me refer to my subs. Para 5 is my response to discontinue. It's not accepted its new info and that examiners didn't have this

SP: clear that DWE went to trouble to get the posts so not a proper reason to discontinue. This should have been at forefront of SWE and they used ro posts to confirm that they were horrid and offensive.

SP: never been evidence RW has behaved in discriminatory way. (Missed) always been completely professional and person centred in practice, this is not new info, just supports what is known and not challenged.

I've raised points about every single item offered by SWE that they claim to be new and they not new. Seems unfortunate assumption this was public Facebook page and proceeded on that assumption.

RW also ways made clear she never made public and posts open to only 40 people accepted as friend. If my sub is to proceed we are in an interesting position. Can't find in rules how to proceed, in wishing to shine light on regulator.

I ask u to consider, SWE asserted if a person had a GRC it changed their biological sex and this isn't supported in fact or law.

If this is a position you continue to hold or a belief they require registers to hold this, raises issues of safeguarding of children considering transitions, this will be raised in another area.

RW: briefly in response, SWE do NOT rely on July doc, we rely on Oct doc. You're hear to rule on the social worker not SWE and those are matters for another venue

(Legal advisor gives advice)

SP: I appreciate not RW job to be drawn into this, but registrants are not required to believe Gender Recognition Certificates change biological sex.

Adj: We'll go into private session and produce written decision. At the moment hard to say how long that will take but we'll keep you updated. Thank you everyone

[Adjourned]

We are currently on stand by, waiting to hear from the Hearings Officer as to when we can return. Please stay tuned. In the meantime, the following submissions have now been made available via the @ebswa website:

ebswa.org/post/submissio…

ebswa.org/post/response-…

We've now been informed that the proceedings will restart at 2.30PM, while the adjudicators decide whether SWE have offered evidence to support discontinuing the case.

The relevant rules say this can only be done if ‘new’ evidence comes to light or if there's a problem with existing evidence - ie, a witness doesn’t turn up.

SP submits that none of the evidence relied upon by SWE is ‘new’ and therefore SWE have not met the requirements of the rules to discontinue

If the tribunal agree with SP, they'll then need to decide what happens next - and this will be an unprecedented situation.

If tribunal agree with RW then the matter will finish and be discontinued - and this case will continue at a later date in an employment tribunal.

Join us at 2.30 when we'll hear the decision.

@threadreaderapp pls unroll

Correction
*we refer to the complainant who complained about RM, as E for Echo

Typo correction
*never been evidence RM has behaved

Correction:
RM also always makes clear