case examiner decision karl glen ftp-75015€¦ · name karl glen (referred to hereafter as ‘the...

Classification: Confidential

Case Examiner Decision Karl Glen FTP-75015


Contents

The role of the case examiners .................................................................................................. 3

Administrative details ................................................................................................................ 4

Decision summary ...................................................................................................................... 5

Summary of the initial concerns ................................................................................................ 6

Preliminary issues ...................................................................................................................... 9

The realistic prospect test - facts ............................................................................................. 10

The realistic prospect test - grounds ....................................................................................... 14

The realistic prospect test – current impairment .................................................................... 17

Referral to a hearing ................................................................................................................ 20

Accepted disposal .................................................................................................................... 21

Final decision............................................................................................................................ 23

3


The role of the case examiners

The case examiners perform a filtering function in the fitness to practise process, and their

primary role is to determine whether the case ought to be considered by adjudicators at a

formal hearing. The wider purpose of the fitness to practise process is not to discipline the

social worker for past conduct, but rather to consider whether the social worker’s current

fitness to practise might be impaired because of the issues highlighted. In reaching their

decisions, case examiners are mindful that Social Work England’s primary objective is to

protect the public.

Case examiners apply the ‘realistic prospect’ test. As part of their role, the case examiners will

consider whether there is a realistic prospect:

• the facts alleged could be found proven by adjudicators

• adjudicators could find that one of statutory grounds for impairment is engaged

• adjudicators could find the social worker's fitness to practise is currently impaired

Case examiners review cases on the papers only. The case examiners are limited, in that,

they are unable to hear and test live evidence, and therefore they are unable to make

findings of fact.

4


Administrative details

Case examiners

Lay case examiner Michael Lupson

Professional case examiner Elaine Weinbren

Social worker that is the subject of the concern(s)

Name Karl Glen (referred to hereafter as ‘the social worker’).

Registration number SW25152

Date of registration 01 August 2012

Case details

Case reference number FTP-75015

Date the concern was raised 31 October 2019

5


Decision summary

Decision summary

Provisional decision Accepted disposal – no further action (voluntary removal)

Final decision Accepted disposal – no further action (voluntary removal)

Executive summary

The case examiners are satisfied there is a realistic prospect of both concerns being found

proven by adjudicators, and a realistic prospect that one of those complaints, if proved,

would amount to misconduct. They have also found a realistic prospect that adjudicators

would find the social worker’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. However, the case

examiners have concluded it is not in the public interest to refer this matter to a final

hearing.

The case examiners are aware it will be in exceptional circumstances where they find a

realistic prospect of current impairment, particularly when there is a risk of repetition,

and then proceed to take no further action with regards to the social worker. However, in

this instance, they are satisfied that no further action is appropriate because the social

worker has agreed to remove himself from the register.

The social worker has indicated that he has agreed that with the case examiners’ decision

that this matter be dealt with by way of no further action (voluntary removal).

6


Summary of the initial concerns

Complainant’s details

Complainant’s name Anthony Wilson

Relationship to the social

worker

Team manager at the social worker’s previous employer.

Details of the complaint

Date complaint was

received

31 October 2019

Complaint summary The social worker was previously employed as a full-time

social work manager by Kent County Council and he

worked on the Approved Mental Health Professional

(AMHP) rota. However, at the time of the incident, he was

retired but remained working for Kent AMHP service on a

contract basis undertaking mental health act assessments.

The social worker was suspended due an incident of gross

misconduct which is alleged to have occurred on 30 April

2019. It is alleged the social worker did not adhere to the

Mental Health Act Code of Practice 14.57 and 14.59 in that

he did not make appropriate enquiries in regard to a

nearest relative. All allegations were substantiated by the

employer and a final written warning issued.

Upon returning to work on 19 September 2019, the social

worker undertook further mental health act assessments

and his reports were audited for quality.

A second incident of unlawful detention was identified,

which is alleged to have occurred on 11 October 2019. It is

alleged that the social worker relied on an expired medical

recommendation in respect of the detention of a service

7


user, and, consequently, the detention was unlawful in

accordance with Section 12(1) of the Mental Health Act

1983.

It was also stated that his report did not meet the

expected standard.

The social worker was suspended by his employer for a

second time pending investigation, at which point he

resigned.

Regulatory concerns

1) In 2019, while working as an approved mental health practitioner, you did not

correctly apply the Mental Health Act 1983 on two occasions

2) On or around 11th October 2019 you wrote a poor-quality report that

recommended the detention of Person B under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Your fitness to practise as a social worker is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack

of competence.

Key evidence considered by the case examiners

• Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

• Extracts from the Mental Health Act 1983.

• MH1 document for Person A.

• Employer investigation minutes of the interview with the social worker on 26 June

2019.

• The social worker’s disciplinary outcome letter, which relates to a hearing on 23

August 2019.

• MH1 assessment for Person B.

8


• Medical recommendation for admission and treatment document.

• Quality review document completed by the social worker’s team leader.

• Advice provided to investigators by Social Work England’s professional advisor.

• Signed voluntary removal form from social worker.

9


Preliminary issues

Conflicts of interest

Declaration: I am not aware of any material conflicts of interest that could impact upon

my consideration of this case.

Lay case examiner Michael Lupson

Professional case examiner Elaine Weinbren

Requests for further information or submissions, or any other preliminary

issues that have arisen

The case examiners are satisfied that the social worker in this case has been notified of

the grounds for investigating whether their fitness to practise is impaired and has been

provided with reasonable opportunity to make written representations to the

investigators.

The case examiners have noted that the social worker’s previous employer suggested the

social worker’s actions were dishonest. Specifically, that the social worker did not detail in

his MH1 report that there had been a misidentification of the nearest relative.

The case examiners agree that the evidence suggests the social worker made no mention

of the misidentification in the report. However, they note the disciplinary documentation

which shows there was no dispute that the social worker alerted his manager the day

after the misidentification had occurred. Whilst it may have been best practice to amend

the report, the transparency of the social worker’s disclosure to his manager leads the

case examiners to conclude there is no realistic prospect that adjudicators would find his

handling of the matter was rooted in dishonesty.

As such, they do not feel there is any requirement for dishonesty to be added as a

regulatory concern and will continue with their consideration of the case as presented to

them by the investigators.

10


The realistic prospect test - facts

Is there a realistic prospect of the facts as stated being found?

1) In 2019, while working as an approved mental health practitioner, you did not correctly apply the Mental Health Act 1983 on two occasions.

The first matter that forms this concern is that the social worker did not make

appropriate enquiries regarding the nearest relative of Person A.

The case examiners have sight of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. They note

paragraphs 14.57 and 14.59 which state:

• AMHPS are required by the Act to attempt to identify the patient’s nearest

relative as defined in section 26 of the Act.

• Before making an application for admission under section 3, AMHP’s must consult

the nearest relative, unless it is not reasonably practicable or would involve

unreasonable delay.

The case examiners also have sight of the Mental Health Act 1983. They note part two,

section 13 (1A) which states:

• If that professional is—

(a) satisfied that such an application ought to be made in respect of the patient;

and

(b) of the opinion, having regard to any wishes expressed by relatives of the

patient or any other relevant circumstances, that it is necessary or proper for the

application to be made by him,

he shall make the application.

From these, the case examiners have established that, before making the application to

admit Person A under section 3 of the Mental Health Act, the social worker was required

to attempt to identify their nearest relative and consider their wishes, unless it was not

reasonably practicable to do so.

The case examiners have sight of the MH1 document for Person A. They noted the

following:

• The assessment was completed by the social worker.

11


• The assessment was completed at 1500 hours on 30 April 2019.

• The conversation with Person A’s nearest relative, Person C, took place at 1400

hours on 6 May 2019.

• Person C was in agreement with the plan under section 3 of the Mental Health

Act.

From this the case examiners have established that the evidence suggests the social

worker identified Person A’s nearest relative, but after making the application to admit

Person A under section 3 of the Mental Health. Accordingly, it seems Person C’s wishes

were considered retrospectively by the social worker.

The case examiners have turned their minds to how practicable it was for the social

worker to obtain the wishes of Person C prior to submitting the assessment.

The case examiners have had sight of the employer investigation minutes of the interview

with the social worker on 26 June 2019. These show that:

• The social worker stated he experienced some problems accessing system records

due to issues with the cloud (a virtual computer system) and he did not therefore

familiarise himself with the case records prior to attending the hospital to

complete the assessment.

• The social worker stated he had worked with Person A previously (around 2 years

prior) and, at that time, Person A’s mother was the nearest relative. When he

spoke with Person A, it was clear that his mother was still alive.

• The social worker stated he took from this that Person A’s mother would still be

the nearest relative, but did not check the system before completing the

assessment as he was still having problems accessing it.

• The social worker stated he made one attempt to call Person A’s mother before

submitting the assessment, but he did try calling her retrospectively.

• The social worker stated he realised Person C was actually the nearest relative

several days later, so he then contacted her to obtain her wishes.

The case examiners have sight of the social worker’s disciplinary outcome letter, which

relates to a hearing on 23 August 2019. These show that:

• In the hearing the social worker stated he had ICT access problems at home.

12


• In the hearing the social worker stated he had alternative arrangements in place

(to address system access issues at home), such as visiting the Memorial Hospital

or telephoning the office for the information required from the system.

• In the hearing the social worker confirmed he decided not to access these

arrangements and instead used historical information regarding Person A.

This evidence suggests that:

• No attempt was made to contact Person C, the nearest relative, until after the

social worker had submitted the assessment.

• Whilst the social worker may have been having technical issues in accessing

system notes, there were reasonably practicable steps that could have been

taken to overcome these that wouldn’t have caused significant delays.

• Had the social worker taken these steps, it is reasonable to conclude the social

worker would have established who the nearest relative was.

The case examiners note the advice provided to investigators by Social Work England’s

professional advisor. The professional advisor felt that Person A’s nearest relative had

been correctly identified and consulted in the application for detention under section 3 of

the Mental Health Act 1983. They went on to say that, as the nearest relative was not

objecting to the admission, this made it lawful.

Whilst the case examiners acknowledge this advice, they cannot agree with the

conclusion. As outlined above, the evidence suggests the social worker did not correctly

apply the Mental Health Act 1983, as he did not seek to understand the wishes of the

nearest relative until after the application was submitted.

The second matter that forms this concern is that the social worker relied on an expired

medical recommendation in respect of the detention of Person B, and, consequently, the

detention was unlawful in accordance with section 12(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The case examiners have sight of the Mental Health Act 1983, section 12 (1) which states:

• Where they (the medical practitioners) have examined the patient separately,

not more than five days must have elapsed between the days on which the

separate examinations took place.

The case examiners have sight of the MH1 assessment for Person B. This shows:

• The assessment was completed by the social worker.

13


• The medical recommendation was made by Doctor F.

• The assessment was completed by the social worker at 1900 hours on 11 October

2019.

The case examiners have sight of the medical recommendation for admission and

treatment document. This shows:

• Doctor F last examined Person B on 3 October 2019, eight days before the social

worker completed his assessment.

The case examiners are satisfied that the evidence suggests the social worker relied on an

expired medical recommendation (older than five days) in respect of the detention of

Person B. If proven, this would not align with section 12(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983.

In conclusion, the case examiners consider there is a realistic prospect of this fact being

found proven by adjudicators.

2.) On or around 11th October 2019 you wrote a poor-quality report that recommended the detention of Person B under the Mental Health Act 1983.

During a case audit of the social worker’s documentation, the MH1 report that related to

the detention of Person B under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was reviewed.

The case examiners have sight of the quality review document, completed by the social

worker’s team leader. Within this review, there are multiple examples given of omissions

and errors made by the social worker in detailing the rationale behind his decision

making. For example, the reviewer highlights that sections were cut and pasted from a

previous report, areas of risk were not extensively covered and sections were not

completed that should have been, such as Person B’s treatment or an acknowledgement

that Person B appealed a detention.

The case examiners have sight of the MH1 document relating to Person B, completed by

the social worker. They have viewed this alongside the previous MH1 document for

Person B, completed by a different social worker on 15 September 2019, which

demonstrates the extensive cut and paste issues. Having reviewed these, the case

examiners are satisfied that the team leader’s review seems fair. This view is supported

by Social Work England’s professional advisor who, in documented advice to

investigators, states that the recommendations made on the report’s quality are

reasoned.

The case examiners note that the social worker’s team leader assessed Person B’s case

and agreed that the outcome was justified (other than the unlawful detention alleged at

regulatory concern 1). The team leader’s concern was that the rationale was not clear

14


from the report without needing to read elsewhere. The case examiners are satisfied

from this that is not necessary to consider if there are underlying concerns such as

assessing risk or safeguarding, and that the focus is on report writing.

On this basis, there is a realistic prospect of this fact being found proven by

adjudicators.

Is there a realistic prospect of facts being found if the regulatory concerns

were amended?

Not applicable.

The realistic prospect test - grounds

For the facts that have passed the realistic prospect test, is there a realistic

prospect that they could amount to an allegation of impaired fitness to

practise by reason of the statutory grounds?

The case examiners must next consider whether, if found proven, the concerns would

amount to an allegation of impaired fitness to practise by reason of the statutory

grounds. The relevant statutory grounds that the case examiners will consider in this case

are lack of competence and misconduct.

Competence

The case examiners will first address lack of competence. They note the case examiner

guidance (2020, para 42) which states:

“usually, lack of competence or capability must be demonstrated over a fair sample of a

social worker’s work. Single episodes of lack or competence or capability are normally

insufficient to represent a pattern that could be called a fair sample.”

In total the case examiners have been presented with evidence of two cases that the

social worker has been involved with. Whilst this is not a single episode, in the opinion of

the case examiners, this cannot be considered a fair sample of the social worker’s work.

15


From the evidence provided, the case examiners can establish that the social worker has

been practising since at least 2012. It is reasonable to conclude that, as an AMHP, he will

have dealt with numerous cases of a similar nature to those of Person’s A and B.

The case examiner guidance goes on to address single episodes, in the context of

capability concerns. It says:

“in exceptional circumstances, a single case could arise from a lack of knowledge of or

competence in such a fundamental principle of social work that it raises wider issues of

concern for public safety.”

The case examiners do not consider this applies in this instance. The evidence suggests in

the disciplinary documentation and the employer assessment document that the social

worker held the necessary knowledge and understood what he needed to do, but that he

did otherwise.

As such, the case examiners are not satisfied there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators

finding this matter amounts to lack of competence.

Misconduct

The case examiners will now address misconduct.

It is important to set out what is generally accepted as misconduct.

Misconduct is of two grounds:

1. Serious misconduct in exercise of professional practice.

2. Conduct of a morally culpable or otherwise disgraceful kind which may occur

outside the course of professional practice but could bring disgrace on the

professional and reputation of profession.

In this case, as the conduct is alleged to have occurred in the exercise of professional

practice, it is the first element of misconduct (as set out above) that case examiners will

consider.

The case examiners also note that ‘misconduct’ denotes serious acts or omissions,

suggesting a significant departure from what would be proper in the circumstances.

To help them decide if the evidence suggests a significant departure from professional

standards, the case examiners have considered the following HCPC standards of

proficiency that were in place at the time of the concerns:

16


• 2.1 Understand current legislation applicable to social work with adults, children,

young people and families.

• 2.6 Be able to exercise authority as a social worker within the appropriate legal

and ethical frameworks and boundaries.

• 2.7 Understand the need to respect and so far as possible uphold the rights,

dignity, values and autonomy of every service user and carer

The case examiners have also considered the following HCPC standards of conduct that

were in place at the time of the concerns:

• 6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

• 10.1 You must keep full, clear and accurate records for everyone you care for, treat, or provide other services to.

Regulatory concern 1 is that the social worker did not correctly apply the Mental Health

Act 1983 on two occasions. The case examiners have demonstrated within their

consideration of the facts that the social worker’s actions were not consistent with what

needed to happen, as dictated by the legislation.

They conclude that, as the social worker in charge of the assessment, it is reasonable to

state it was the social worker’s responsibility to ensure the assessment met the legal

requirements. Working within legal frameworks and applying guidance in order to

complete robust assessments of service users is a basic social work skill. Furthermore, the

social worker was an experienced practitioner and it is clear from the evidence provided

that he had the necessary knowledge of the relevant legislation and had practised within

this field over a number of years. The case examiners believe adjudicators may consider

the social worker’s actions were a serious departure from HCPC standards of proficiency

2.1 and 2.6.

The impact of the social worker‘s actions, drawn from the evidence, was that both

Person’s A and B were illegally detained. The case examiners note professional opinions

presented in the evidence that the detentions may have been in the best interest of both

service users. The case examiners believe detention is intrusive and that legislation is

designed to protect people’s liberty and rights. Divergence from this without any

reasonable justification is likely to be considered serious. The steps prescribed by

legislation are designed to safeguard the needs and protect the rights of the individual

involved. An assessment carried out without following the prescribed steps may create a

risk of harm to the individual, as well as depriving them of their rights and dignity. As

such, if proven, the social worker’s actions would not align to HCPC standards of conduct

6.1, or standards of proficiency 2.7.

17


The case examiners are satisfied there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators finding this

matter (regulatory concern 1) amounts to misconduct.

Regulatory concern 2 is that the social worker wrote a poor-quality report that

recommended the detention of Person B under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The case examiners acknowledge that writing reports to an acceptable standard is a basic

expectation in social work. As the social worker responsible for drafting the assessment, it

is reasonable to state it was the social worker’s responsibility to ensure it met an

acceptable standard. Failing to do so would not align to HCPC standard of conduct 10.1.

However, the case examiners are aware that a single negligent act, unless it is particularly

grave, is unlikely to meet the threshold for misconduct.

When considering the seriousness of this matter, the case examiners noted that the social

worker’s team leader assessed Person B’s case and agreed that the outcome was justified

(other than the unlawful detention already considered at regulatory concern 1). The team

leader’s concern was that the rationale was not clear from the report without needing to

read case related documents elsewhere. In their consideration of lack of competency, the

case examiners have explained why they do not feel they have been presented with a fair

sample of work. As such, they must consider this a case of poor report writing in isolation.

As the team leader has confirmed the decision making was sound (again, other than the

matter already considered at regulatory concern 1), the case examiners do not consider

an isolated incident (as presented) of poor report writing is particularly grave and that it

is unlikely adjudicators would consider it meets the threshold for misconduct.

As such, the case examiners are not satisfied there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators

finding this matter (regulatory concern 2) amounts to misconduct.

To conclude, the case examiners consider there is only a realistic prospect of adjudicators

finding regulatory concern 1 amounts to misconduct.

The realistic prospect test – current impairment

Fitness to practise history

The case examiners have not been presented with any evidence that suggests there is any

fitness to practise history.

18


Is there a realistic prospect that, if the case were to proceed to a hearing, the

adjudicators might find the social worker’s fitness to practise is currently

impaired?

Having concluded there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators establishing the statutory

ground of ‘misconduct’, the case examiners must consider whether there is a realistic

prospect of adjudicators finding current impairment. The case examiners are aware they

must assess both the personal and public elements of current impairment. They will

consider each in turn.

Personal impairment

In considering current impairment, the case examiners have considered whether the

conduct is remediable, whether the social worker has demonstrated insight and/or

undergone remediation, and whether there is a likelihood the matters alleged will be

repeated.

The case examiners consider that the conduct in this instance is remediable for instance

through training or reflective practice and supervision.

There have been no submissions put forward by the social worker, other than his request

to voluntarily remove from the register. The case examiners have no information that

indicates any insight into the regulatory concerns or the impact the alleged conduct had

or could have had on the service users involved. Further, there is no evidence of any

insight into the potential impact on public confidence.

The social worker largely accepted the concern around him not obtaining the wishes of

Person A’s nearest relative, demonstrated within the employer’s disciplinary

documentation. However, the social worker did not inform his manager immediately

upon realising his error. He also seemed to minimise the seriousness of the matter when

recording in the assessment that the nearest relative had agreed with his decision

making, be it retrospectively.

There is no evidence of any other significant remorse or insight into the consequences, or

potential consequences, of his actions

As the social worker resigned when he was suspended by his employer due to the

concerns around his handling of Person B’s case, there is no evidence to show the social

worker’s view on this matter.

19


The case examiners therefore consider that the social worker’s insight into his conduct is

limited.

There is no evidence of any remediation. The social worker has informed Social Work

England that he is retired and he does not intend to practise again, which presents a

challenge to remediation.

The case examiners therefore conclude that adjudicators are likely to consider that the

risk of repetition would be high.

Public interest

The case examiners must now consider the public interest in this matter.

They believe that a social worker acting outside of legislation and detaining somebody

illegally has the potential to undermine public confidence. They also consider that such

conduct, if proven, is a significant departure from the professional standards.

In addition to public perception being impacted by the social worker’s actions there must

be consideration given to the potential risk to the public. Should the conduct be repeated,

illegally detaining someone has the potential to cause harm, which the case examiners

consider to be serious.

Regulatory concerns regarding acting outside of legislation are serious and go to the heart

of public confidence in the social work profession. They have the potential to undermine

the public’s trust in social workers. As such, it is likely the public would expect that a finding

of current impairment is made by adjudicators.

In considering both the personal impairment and public interest, the case examiners

have concluded there is a realistic prospect that adjudicators would find the registrant

to be currently impaired.

20


Referral to a hearing

Is there a public interest in referring the concerns to a hearing?

In this case, the social worker has completed and signed a voluntary removal request

agreeing that:

• His fitness to practise is impaired.

• He consents to be removed from the Social Work England register.

• He does not intend to rescind the application for removal prior to being removed from

the register.

• He does not intend to apply for re-admission to the register.

The case examiners have noted the voluntary removal guidance.

They have first considered whether there is a public interest in the case being referred to

a hearing.

Case examiners note that the primary purpose of a final hearing would be to determine

whether the social worker is currently impaired in order to ensure public safety. They are

satisfied that, if the social worker agrees to the accepted disposal and voluntary removes

from the register, the appropriate level of public protection is being secured.

The case examiners have also considered the wider public interest.

A voluntary removal agreement has been received and the social worker accepts that his

fitness to practise is currently impaired. The case examiners note the voluntary removal

guidance which states that, in most situations such as this, resolving the case without a

hearing and publishing the decision and reasoning will serve the wider public interest of

maintaining confidence in the social work profession. It would also uphold the

professional standards of social workers.

However, in exceptional cases, a case may be so serious that not holding a public hearing

would carry a risk of damaging public confidence in social work and in the regulation of

the profession. The case examiners do not consider this matter exceptional or so serious

that public confidence would be damaged by not holding a hearing.

The case examiners therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to refer the

matter to a public hearing.

21


Having concluded there is no public interest in this case being referred to a public

hearing, the case examiners propose accepted disposal in accordance with the signed

voluntary removal agreement.

Accepted disposal

Case outcome

Proposed outcome No further action - (voluntary removal)

Reasoning

The case examiners have now considered what would be the most appropriate sanction

in this instance. In line with Social Work England’s sanctions guidance, the case examiners

are aware it will be in exceptional circumstances where they would recommend taking no

further action after identifying a realistic prospect of finding current impairment,

particularly when they have identified a risk of repetition.

However, the case examiners have explained above why they consider voluntary removal

is appropriate in this case. They considered that, in the absence of a voluntary removal

request, an appropriate sanction in line with the sanctions guidance is likely to have been

required. However, the case examiners consider that the social worker’s voluntary

removal from the register affords the necessary protection to the public and maintains

public confidence in the profession, therefore no further action is required.

When considering all the sanctions available to the case examiners, no further action is

the most appropriate outcome due to the exceptional circumstances presented to them

with the social worker’s request to voluntarily remove from the register.

Response from the social worker

The social worker responded on 21 July 2020 by confirming that:

22


“I have read the case examiners’ decision and the ‘further information about accepted

disposal’ guidance document. I understand the terms of the proposed disposal of my

fitness to practise case and accept them in full.”

Case examiner response

The social worker has confirmed his agreement with the proposed accepted disposal as

outlined by the case examiners.

Having been advised of the social worker’s response, the case examiners have turned

their minds as to whether no further action (voluntary removal) remains the most

appropriate means of disposal for this case. They have reviewed their decision, paying

particular regard to the overarching objectives of Social Work England, i.e. protection of

the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the social work profession, and the

maintenance of proper standards.

The case examiners have again considered whether it is in the public interest for this case

to be referred to a hearing for consideration by adjudicators. The case examiners are

satisfied that there has been no material change since the initial decision and there

remains no public interest in referring this matter to a hearing.

Case examiners remain of the view that an accepted disposal by way of no further action

(voluntary removal) is a fair and proportionate disposal and is the minimum necessary to

protect the public and the wider public interest.

23


Final decision

Case examiners’ final decision

The final decision of the case examiners is to dispose of the case by way of no further

action (voluntary removal).

Is there an interim order to be revoked?

No

case examiner decision karl glen ftp-75015€¦ · name karl glen (referred to hereafter as ‘the...

Documents