Who won Lisa Arthurworrey's appeal?

They lost of course, and despite apparently claiming that "so far, all appeals to the Care Standards Tribunal have upheld the verdict of the GSCC" (Professional Social Work, June 2008, p10). I can only assume that they are defining "appeals" narrowly, since we at Celtic Knot are certainly aware of their losing other appeals: this is the second successful Schedule 6 appeal out of seven this year, representing a 28.5% success rate.

But maybe they shouldn't be that disappointed. Given their apparent expressed wish for a tougher Employer's Code of Practice, it might be a breath of fresh air that the CST findings repeatedly emphasised that Lisa's failings were compounded institutionally by her employer and by failings of other agencies. The Employee's Code of Practice may be less attractive as a rod with which employers can beat employees in future.

BASW?

Maybe. In his statement reported by the BBC Chief Executive Ian Johnston says he was pleased that a very long-standing issue had been brought to an end - but BASW was not pleased by the inevitable reporting, for example on the Community Care website, that the tribunal said Lisa won despite not because of her representation.

Lisa Arthurworrey?

She appears to have refrained from any conspicuous comment, but one imagines the judgement was something of a rollercoaster ride. Her late appeal was admitted, the tribunal found that the GSCC case that she was not of good conduct was not made out, said as to her competence that it had "made it abundantly clear above that we believe that in most instances the failings identified and relied upon were either as a result of medical advice which was effectively unchallengeable or as a result of a lack of supportive and competent managers", and ultimately allowed her appeal.

But along the way, it decided she was less than "entirely trustworthy", criticised numerous aspects of poor practice, and recommended psychiatric assessment before she be allowed to practice again.

The lawyers?

What lawyers? Of the seven Schedule 6 cases before the CST this year that I have already referred to, two social workers were assisted by their immediate family members, three by UNISON or BASW representatives, two by no-one, none by a lawyer.

Oh, yes, the GSCC lawyers: barristers were instructed in three of the seven cases, and a solicitor in one further. Lawyers were not put up against the two completely unrepresented claimants, whose cases were disposed of without an oral hearing.

Should social workers have a right to be represented by solicitors (or, as the Care Standards Tribunal suggested in the instant case, by a QC)?

What would you expect our answer to be?

Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.