NOD Lawless

							         NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE CONDUCT COMMITTEE

To:

Name: Ms Sandra Lawless

Address:

Registration No: 1004345

To:

   (1) The Registrant

Copied to:

   (2) The General Social Care Council

   (3) The Complainant

   (4) The Employer (if any)

The meeting was held at:

The General Social Care Council, Goldings House, Hay’s Lane, London, SE1
2HB

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Conduct Committee of the General
Social Care Council met on the 7 October 2010 consider the following
Allegation against you “the Registrant” as follows:

It is alleged that:
Between 4 December 2007 and 4 March 2008, whilst employed by Leicester City
Council as a Social Worker you:

Between 4 December 2007 and 4 March 2008 at Belton in the County of
      Leicester, pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the
      harassment of Jill Bamford and which you knew or ought to have known
      amounted to the harassment of her in that on multiple occasions between
      4 December 2007 and 4 March 2008, were verbally abusive to Jill
      Bamford.




Case ref:1004345                                                              1
On 23 April 2009, at Loughborough and Melton Mowbray Magistrates’ Court, you
      were convicted of harassment, contrary to section 2 of the Protection from
      Harassment Act 1997, and were sentenced to a conditional discharge for
      2 years and a restraining order, and in addition were ordered to pay £350
      in costs.

And in relation to the above, you have committed misconduct



STAGE 1: PRELIMINARIES – 7 October 2010

1. The Bundle
The bundle of documents was formally accepted by both parties.

Advice from the Legal Adviser:
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 of ‘ The Rules’ allows the Committee to receive
evidence in documentary form if it appears relevant to its consideration of the
case .There could be no objection to the Committee considering at this stage
the Bundle of documents. The weight to be attached to the evidence
contained therein is of course a matter for the Committee to consider.

Committee’s Decision:
The Committee accepted the bundle.




STAGE 1: FINDINGS OF FACT – 7 October 2010

Advice from the Legal Adviser:

   1. In accordance with paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 of the Rules, the
      burden of proof rests upon the Council and the standard of proof is the
      balance of probabilities. A single and unvarying standard. It means that
      a fact will be found proved if you consider it is more likely than not to
      have happened.

   2. The Committee should consider each numbered part and sub-part of
      each part of the Allegation separately.

   3. Paragraph 11 (5) of Schedule 2 of The Rules provides that the findings
      of fact and certification of conviction of any UK Criminal Court or the
      findings of a Judge in any UK Civil Court shall be conclusive proof of
      the facts or conviction so found.

   4. Paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 2 of the Rules provides that after the
      Formal Allegation has been read, the Chair of the Committee shall ask
      the Registrant whether any fact, (or convictions) alleged in the Formal
      Allegation are admitted and may receive an agreed statement of facts.

Case ref:1004345                                                              2
   5. Paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 2 of the Rules provides that where any
      facts (or convictions) are admitted, the Chair of the Committee shall
      announce that such facts (or convictions) have been found proved.

The Committee’s decision is as follows:

The Committee has found parts 1 and 2 of the Formal Allegation
proved.

The reasons for the Committee’s decision are as follows:

The Committee took into account the memorandum of conviction from
Loughborough Magistrates Court dated 23 April 2009 for an offence of
harassment contrary to Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
(at tab 2 pages 2 and 3 of the bundle). The Committee applied paragraph 11
(5) of Schedule 2 of The Rules in reaching its decision.

The Committee also noted the admissions made by the Registrant.


STAGE 2: MISCONDUCT – 7 October 2010

Advice from the Legal Adviser:

   1.     Misconduct is defined in Rule 2(1) of part 1 of the Rules as:

          “conduct which calls into question the suitability of a Registrant to
          remain on the Register”.

   2.     The burden of proof in relation to misconduct rests upon the
          Council, in accordance with paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 2 of the
          Rules, but the issue of Misconduct is an exercise of judgement or
          assessment of the Committee on the basis of the facts found
          proven.

   3.     In accordance with paragraph 23(4) of Schedule 2 of the Rules, in
          deciding upon the issue of Misconduct the Committee shall have
          regard to the Code of Practice issued by the Council. The
          Committee is not bound to those sections of the Code upon which
          the Council has made submissions. It may have regard to any it
          considers relevant.

The Committee’s decision is as follows:

The Committee has found Misconduct not proved.

The reasons for the Committee’s decision are as follows:




Case ref:1004345                                                                  3
In reaching its decision the Committee had regard to the definition of
misconduct as defined in Rule 2 (1) of Part 1 of The Rules as ‘Conduct which
calls into question the suitability of a Registrant to remain on the Register’.

The GSCC submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of Paragraph
5.8 of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers (The Code) and was
capable of undermining public confidence in the profession.

The Committee considered that ordinarily a criminal conviction for an offence
of harassment contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act
1997 was likely to lead to a finding of misconduct. However given the
particular and unusual circumstances that led to the Registrant’s conviction
the Committee was not satisfied that the facts found proven in this case
amounted to misconduct.

The Registrant, who was unrepresented, gave evidence on oath to the
Committee outlining the context of the events leading up to the criminal
conviction and thereafter. The Committee found the Registrant to be a
credible witness. The Committee noted that the Registrant’s use of the
verbally abusive language occurred in the context of a long and acrimonious
boundary dispute with a neighbour at a time when she had been undergoing
considerable stress in her personal life. The Committee also took into account
that the incidents took place on private land in a rural setting. The Committee
was impressed by the Registrant’s insight into her behaviour and was satisfied
that she had learnt from the experience.

In all of the circumstances, the Committee did not believe that the
Registrant’s behaviour had called into question her suitability to work in Social
Care Services and accordingly found misconduct not proved.

The case is therefore dismissed and the hearing concluded.


Signed……………………………………….

Chair of the Conduct Committee

Dated………………………………………..

Signed………………………………………..

As witnessed by the Clerk to the Conduct Committee

Dated…………………………………………




Case ref:1004345                                                               4