That's the question being asked by expert blogger Allan Norman in relation to the case of child protection social worker Lynda Barnes.
Barnes admitted asking her brother to hire a hitman to kill her ex-husband in 1995 and was given a two-year suspended sentence. She was then sacked by the then Avon Council, though in an industrial tribunal a former colleague said the conviction did not imply anything about her competence as a social worker.
It has emerged that Barnes then got a job at Bath and North East Somerset Council in 2005 and she subsequently became a team manager.
Her name has been made public in a legal judgement after her practice and conduct was severely criticised by a judge in a child protection case.
While she admitted the conviction, the judge found she gave the council and the GSCC (in her application for registration) a "sanitised" version of the events of the conspiracy case. But she also gave them permission to read her criminal file and apparently these opportunities were not taken up. This led the judge - Judge Barclay - to question whether her past had been subject to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny.
However, Norman stresses that the GSCC should not automatically act to remove Barnes from the register because of the conviction itself. The real issue for him is her social work practice and management techniques, including excess workload allocation and, crucially, deliberately misleading the court.
It's a pretty extraordinary case all in all.
The Judgement is lengthy and complex. For the Judge to concentrate so fully and in such detail on Ms Barnes, both her personal and professional circumstances/professional behaviour (alleged), is highly unusual. In essence it sought to show that Ms Barnes had mislead, exaggerated or fudged certain factors, leading experts to change their recommendations once apprised of the true facts, committed perjury (while part heard) and asked a junior colleague to do so in evidence, if the 'end justified the means'.
The outcome of the allegations of bullying by Social Worker C's Grievance are not known, are they ? My understanding is that the burden of proof as regards Worker C's allegations are upon the worker to prove them. Ms Barnes denies them.
If any of the above is proved to be true, then, in my view, Ms Barnes has brought the profession into disrepute and should be officially censured, and not allowed to practice. If proved not, Ms Barnes would have the right to a formal apology, and of taking further action. It is too easy to jump on the bandwagon and pillory someone without all the facts and begs the question, why at the 11th hour did all of this come to light, and not until Ms Barnes had gone to Jamaica on a professional visit.
Ms Barnes conviction and her subsequent actions as regards sanitising it, are questionable, in my view, but again we are not in possession of the full facts.
Personally, I think that having a conviction for conspiracy to murder, for which she pleaded guilty on day 2 of the trial, is quite a conviction to have and then to get registered with the GSCC and then to work as a manager - goodness.
So, did the GSCC take only one persons word for it, or did the committee that looked at her case have access to the Court proceedings. This is such a serious offence that I dont see how they could rely on her version of events alone. Sometimes people feel justified in carrying out the most horrendous acts due to the circumstances, but as social workers should we not be taking some sort of moral high ground. What if she had succeeded in getting her ex killed, then there would have been no question whatsoever about her not being registered. There was clear intent to commit murder, I dont recall seeing that as being an acceptable value within social work.
I think that given her behaviour in court as a professional, these are grounds to have her struck off the register, her actions were completely unforgivable. The courts need to be able to trust social workers in the court arena, their views, opinions and professional standing. Such behaviour only causes mistrust, frankly I think the judge was right to persue this one.
Was the judge right to order the detailed publication of the judgement? Lynda Barnes didnt want it to happen, nor did the council. but the families involved in the case did. And the judge said there was an "overwhelming case" for publicity- "for lessons to be learned in the future conduct of care cases by this local authority and other local authorities, and potentially for anyone who may be nursing a sense of grievance or injustice which they believe is attributable to Mrs Barnes"
Personally I don't think the Judge was right to make this public and there is much more to this than the Judgement. Neither do I think it is right to sweep wrong doing under the carpet. However, I am open to listen to others views on this matter. As I said earlier there are factors we do not know about.
Mary Brady: As I said earlier there are factors we do not know about.
As I said earlier there are factors we do not know about.
The woman was convicted for conspiracy to murder. What else does anyone need to know?
I've thought a bit about this. My gut feeling is yes, it should be a bar and I agree with Bulldog Allan's points. I had though, thought that any conviction for any violent offence would be a bar.
I think the need to publicise is to in some ways force the GSCC and local authorities to do at least a little bit of their own investigations (check publicly available court records) when there is a conviction of such a nature.
If that makes me over-judgemental - so be it.
cb, I do take your point, if Ms Davies had not sanitised her application in order to register she would/should have been barred. Therefore not practising, as she had previously been dismissed, as a result of her conviction by another LA. Yes I see, you cannot see the two events in isolation. Thanks.
After her conviction, I think she should have left the profession think about the code of conduct plotting a person’s death that is just too much. Getting arrested can happen to anyone and police tend to arrest on little evidence. But being convicted of plotting someone’s death that is very serious.
I am interested that none of the responses so far quite take up the point I was trying to make in the blog referred to in the opening words of this thread. There is a focus on the gravity of the offence, and it being fundamentally incompatible with social work values. I wholeheartedly agree.
The question I raise is whether conviction and registration are incompatible, even if rehabilitation intervenes.
The answer offered by the local authority to that question, is effectively, Yes: "The council’s current director of children’s services, Ashley Ayre, who was not working for B&NES at the time, said no one with such a serious conviction should ever have been employed by the authority in such a role."
The answer offered by the General Social Care Council to the same question is effectively, No: “A criminal conviction is not in itself a bar to registering with the GSCC. We treat all cases individually and will consider various factors such as the length of time since the offence, evidence of rehabilitation and references from other social work professionals.”
And of course, despite my post broadly corresponding with the GSCC line, we were instructed and acted on behalf of the whistle-blowing social worker C, not Lynda Barnes.
Syncrat makes some very pertinent points about the risks she may pose: "Without any psychiatric dispensation and treatment surely that would mean that she is willing to resort to extreme and antisocial methods to achieve certain ends if pushed too far?" That analysis seems to hit the mark. 15 years later, when pushed too far, she decides to lie on oath, purjure herself and manufacture evidence. But Syncrat, I wasn't suggesting we should test the extent of an offender's rehabilitation by letting them loose on the general pubic as social workers, rather, if they have received the necessary support or treatment, and have demonstrated rehabilitation, it should not be impossible for them to enter or re-enter the profession.
There is a different angle from Mary Brady: "My understanding is that the burden of proof as regards Worker C's allegations are upon the worker to prove them. Ms Barnes denies them. If any of the above is proved to be true, then, in my view, Ms Barnes has brought the profession into disrepute..." Mary, you are quite right about the burden of proof, the High Court confirmed as much in the judgment, para 72. The allegations were tried out before a High Court judge. Lynda Barnes was represented by solicitor and counsel. The judge concluded, "I do believe therefore and so find that the allegations I have dealt with made by [our client] are proved...". The Court of Appeal rejected not one but two subsequent appeals by Lynda Barnes. Lynda Barnes does indeed continue to deny them. But at what point do you think as social workers we should accept that her continuing denials are futile and the allegations are, in fact, proven?
Sources:
Bath and North East Somerset Council employed Lynda Barnes as social worker with conspiracy to murder conviction
Lynda Barnes speaks of devastation after court case in Bath
Media statement in response to the judgement by His Honour Judge Barclay - Bath & North East Somerset Council
Celtic Knot - Solicitors & Social Workers
www.celticknot.org.uk
twitter.com/CelticKnotTweet
Celtic Knot: I am interested that none of the responses so far quite take up the point I was trying to make in the blog referred to in the opening words of this thread. There is a focus on the gravity of the offence, and it being fundamentally incompatible with social work values. I wholeheartedly agree. The question I raise is whether conviction and registration are incompatible, even if rehabilitation intervenes. The answer offered by the local authority to that question, is effectively, Yes: "The council’s current director of children’s services, Ashley Ayre, who was not working for B&NES at the time, said no one with such a serious conviction should ever have been employed by the authority in such a role." The answer offered by the General Social Care Council to the same question is effectively, No: “A criminal conviction is not in itself a bar to registering with the GSCC. We treat all cases individually and will consider various factors such as the length of time since the offence, evidence of rehabilitation and references from other social work professionals.” And of course, despite my post broadly corresponding with the GSCC line, we were instructed and acted on behalf of the whistle-blowing social worker C, not Lynda Barnes. Syncrat makes some very pertinent points about the risks she may pose: "Without any psychiatric dispensation and treatment surely that would mean that she is willing to resort to extreme and antisocial methods to achieve certain ends if pushed too far?" That analysis seems to hit the mark. 15 years later, when pushed too far, she decides to lie on oath, purjure herself and manufacture evidence. But Syncrat, I wasn't suggesting we should test the extent of an offender's rehabilitation by letting them loose on the general pubic as social workers, rather, if they have received the necessary support or treatment, and have demonstrated rehabilitation, it should not be impossible for them to enter or re-enter the profession. There is a different angle from Mary Brady: "My understanding is that the burden of proof as regards Worker C's allegations are upon the worker to prove them. Ms Barnes denies them. If any of the above is proved to be true, then, in my view, Ms Barnes has brought the profession into disrepute..." Mary, you are quite right about the burden of proof, the High Court confirmed as much in the judgment, para 72. The allegations were tried out before a High Court judge. Lynda Barnes was represented by solicitor and counsel. The judge concluded, "I do believe therefore and so find that the allegations I have dealt with made by [our client] are proved...". The Court of Appeal rejected not one but two subsequent appeals by Lynda Barnes. Lynda Barnes does indeed continue to deny them. But at what point do you think as social workers we should accept that her continuing denials are futile and the allegations are, in fact, proven? Sources: Bath and North East Somerset Council employed Lynda Barnes as social worker with conspiracy to murder conviction Lynda Barnes speaks of devastation after court case in Bath Media statement in response to the judgement by His Honour Judge Barclay - Bath & North East Somerset Council
Whilst I fully accept my response was less than detailed or explanatory, it was intended to address your question around whether [LB's] conviction of a serious crime and GSCC registration should be wholly incompatible. I will also accept that in some cases, the nature of the offence can permit rehabilitation which would not compromise service users, put children/vulnerable adults at risk, or bring the integrity of the profession into disrepute. We are not talking about shoplifting here. Neither are we talking about sexual offences against children, which would be a bar to GSCC registration for work with children. Is a sexual offence against a child, for which a conviction has been given, any less or more of an offence than LB's? Conspiracy to murder is, as my lay mind understands it, classed as a very serious offence, one which is defined in Law, by the presence of a clear intention to actually kill another human being. LB was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, of the charge of conspiracy to murder. Ergo, she intended to kill.
We then move to the question, should LB, as any other convicted criminal, be entitled to rehabilitation and encouraged to become a functioning member of society? Of course. Should LB be employed in what is a professionally regulated, power over position of trust, with the most vulnerable individuals in our society? Absolutely not. Neither should the child sex offender, but there would be no moral or ethical dilemma over that individual's suitability to be a social worker, now would there? The new and apparently founded allegations against LB are a separate legal matter, but these allegations are and have been founded. Enough already! LB's continuing denials serve only to damage an already fragile profession and make a mockery of the GSCC. If the GSCC fails to take a stand on this case, it might as well shut up shop. A regulatory body has a duty to its registrants and the public the registrants serve, first and foremost. The GSCC is showing itself to be nothing but a paper tiger.
Is my essentially judgemental stance in respect of LB incompatible with basic social work values? Of course it is. Does that mean LB should maintain her registration, after the latest debacle? No. Social work values (which vary from parctitioner to practitioner) are intrinsically laden and driven by judgements, it is simply that some are more palatable than others. I think it is a little disingenuous of anyone to suggest that social work values and preventing individuals like LB from being a social worker, go against what we as social workers should stand for. I would have refused to employ LB, had I been in the position to do so, at the time of her return to social work. Does that make me a bad manager or worker? For some, maybe, but so be it. Making difficult decisions are at the forefront of child protection work, this is no different.
Just in case I have not made myself clear, LB should not have been permitted to re-enter the profession after her conspiracy to murder conviction. This latest judgement is an opportunity to encourage LB to look for an alternative career and to give some hope to anyone who suffers at the hands of poor practice.
There is a huge difference between a minor offence when you were young, and a conspiracy to murder conviction. The first should not be a problem, but if someone who could potentially take my kids away had a conviction for conspiracy to murder then I would not be happy about it. I think it is too serious an offence to be able to work as a Social Worker.
I'm glad this issue has been properly debated, and not just dismissed as 'of course it should bar you' - after all, who hasn't briefly wished the ultimate end on some irritating or offensive person ? However, having carefully read all contributions, I'm unswayed from the basis of that first response. The level of premeditation to plan such an offence gives ample opportunity for the rational side of our thought processes to enter the debate in our head, otherwise we'd have a stupendous homicide rate. The extra aggravating factor of her concealmentof the full facts thereafter just reinforces the concern.
'Fraid so --although perhaps Lynda Barnes could have worked in a supervised role rather than a management role and her cases would have to be under scrutiny as everyone's are.
Lax HR though, no?
To the last 3 contributors, my views exactly. I have read the various threads with great interest. Life and people are never simple. I hope we continue to debate this matter and respect one anothers differing views.
I think the seriousness of the offence was enough in itself to question registering Ms Barnes. It worries me that she was allowed to register in the first place.
Maybe in another job this would not have been an issue, but because it involves working with vulnerable others it clearly is important. Against Social Work values, bringing the profession in disrepute is valid, but contradicts alot of staff behaviours equally serious that are often not addressed or dealt with adequately e.g. giving a locum social worker notice for taking Cocaine regularly in the staff toilet where supply and dealing was going on. Should that have not been instant dismissal? Should not the police have been informed? Did colleagues stand up for their social work values and reputation then? No, they stupidly believed a story about some personal difficulties and worse just wanted the issue to go away.............Ahh.
The biggest issue here is the HR in the local authority. How can they not have checked her CRB? If an agency did that and this happened hey would be shut down. Have the people in HR been brought to account?
I think this is really difficult. My first response was to say 'no it shouldn't it would depend on the circumstances' but then I was swayed by the point about vulnerability and access to vulnerable people given the quality and nature of the offence.
However, my intial question would have been did the Council work to its policy quidelines on Recruitment and did it have a policy on ex-offenders? Because if it did then it should have made a risk assessment on the facts in her case and then made a decision.
Qualitatively, I agree this offence was not like shoplifting and different standards would have to be applied and risks assessed.
As to the outcome, I cannot make that judgement from this distance but I am sort of persuaded that unless there was a great deal of objective evidence to support this woman not being a risk, then it is difficult to see how it would have been proper to employ her.
It is not black and white however, and I do not think the Judge's approach was either helpful or proper.
Chris , Your last sentence resonated with me. When you read all of it, not just the Judgement but everything else. I did think the Judge 'went off on one' and he went into overkill and perhaps, outside of his remit. I'll stand to be corrected however. I do wonder what the long term outcome of the case, for the children involved, will be.
Thanks Mary. In another different set of circumstances, a student Social Worker I know was prevented from having a Statutory placement locally because he had a minor juvenile conviction, by a very hard line SSD Director who seemed to believe the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act did not exist for her own Department.
He had been in the care system and this decision hurt him greatly.
Issues like this can be adequately covered/managed by effective risk assessment, CRB checks and evaluation of the nature and quality of the conviction(s), proper reference and employment checking and ongoing supervision.
This strict approach would alienate/exclude many ex Care users who may have come into contact with the Criminal justice system and also many survivors of Mental illness, such as myself, who can easily find themselves on the other side of the law when ill but who may leave care or become well and whose experiences may well be useful to others.
I believe that such a conviction is invariably going to undermine public confidence in such a worker and employer and on that basis I think that she ought to be removed from the GSCC Register. The 'greater good' has to take priority.
Both employer and GSCC appear to have beeen lax in checking the full details of her conviction - an HR failure I fear.
If a conspiracy to murder is no bar to registration - what is the point of the GSCC?