Social Care Wales v Cerys Nomi

Representation:Social Care Wales was represented by Ms Gem Casey, senior associate and solicitor from Blake Morgan LLP, instructed by the Applicant. Ms Nomi did not attend and was not represented in her absence. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the following witness for Social Care Wales: • Mrs Clare Lane, fitness to practise senior officer, employed by Social Care Wales. The application

1. This is an application to extend an interim order, made by Social Care Wales (SCW, the Applicant), pursuant to section 148 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (the Act).

2. Ms Nomi (the Respondent) has been registered with SCW as an adult care home worker (a type of social care worker) since 7 October 2022. The Respondent was made the subject of an interim order, an interim suspension order, on 2 July 2024. The maximum period of length of the interim order is 18 months. Any extension to the 18-month period can only be made by way of an application to the First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal).

3. The interim order was reviewed and continued by the Applicant's Interim Orders Panel, on 17 December 2024 and 16 June 2025. The interim order is due to expire on 1 January 2026.

4. On 16 September 2025, the Applicant made its application to extend the interim order to the Tribunal. The application requests that the Tribunal extend the interim suspension order for six months until 1 July 2026.

5. By way of an order from Judge Habib Khan, dated 29 October 2025, the application was listed for a video hearing on 2 December 2025. The hearing

6. This was a remote hearing held on video, as per the order of 29 October 2025. There were no significant connectivity issues. Relevant background

7. The Respondent is registered with the Applicant as an adult care home worker. At the point of registration, she was employed by Bramble Bay Ltd, providing care and support to residents of Rookery Care Home in Newcastle Emlyn, West Wales.

8. On 14 August 2023, the Applicant received a referral from Bramble Bay Ltd which raised concerns about Ms Nomi’s conduct with Adult A on 3 August 2023. It was alleged by two members of staff, present during the incident on 3 August 2023, that Ms Nomi engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards Adult A. Adult A was, at that time, a 22-year-old male with complex learning disabilities, autism and he was non-verbal. The staff members reported that Adult A approached Ms Nomi as she was in a semi seated semi laying position. At first, he attempted to cuddle Ms Nomi but appeared to become sexually aroused and began to ‘dry hump’ her leg whilst resting his head on her right breast. It was reported that Ms Nomi laughed and attempted to draw her colleagues’ attention to what was happening. She did not attempt to stop the behaviour/challenge Adult A/redirect him. It was reported that the behaviour continued for about three to four minutes. One of the witnesses also reported that Ms Nomi was wearing a low-cut top whilst providing care to Adult A and had commented that Adult A was ‘grabbing her boobs’ when grabbed on to her clothing. Ms Nomi is also alleged to have said ‘I’ve paid enough to have them on show’ and ‘most men would pay money for this’.

9. Bramble Bay ltd carried out a disciplinary investigation, which included consideration of further allegations which predated the incident on 3 August 2023. The incidents concerned a time when Ms Nomi was alleged to have taken a male resident into the toilet when out with him and to have undressed in front of another resident when attending a swimming pool. The employer held a disciplinary hearing on 3 August 2023 and decided to dismiss Ms Nomi for gross misconduct. The legal framework

10. The statutory framework for the registration of social care workers is set out in the Act. The Applicant's statutory function is set out at section 68(1) of the Act – to protect, promote and maintain the safety and well-being of the public in Wales. Under section 68(2) of the Act, the Applicant is required to promote and maintain high standards in the provision of care and support services, high standards of conduct and practice among social care workers, high standards in the training of social care workers, and public confidence in social care workers.

11. Under section 144(5) of the Act, an Interim Orders Panel may make an interim order only if it is satisfied that the order is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interest of the registered person.

12. Under section 144(4) of the Act, there are two types of interim order – an interim suspension order or an interim conditional registration order.

13. Under section 148(2) of the Act, on an application to extend the interim order, this Tribunal can revoke the interim order, revoke or vary any condition in respect of an interim conditional registration order, extend, or further extend, the order for up to 12 months or make no change to the order or to the period for which the order is to have effect.

14. The Applicant has produced ‘Guidance on Indicative Disposals for the Fitness to Practise Panel and Interim Order imposed by the Interim Orders Panel’. Under section 112(1) of the Act, the Applicant is required to publish a code of practice which sets standards of conduct and practice expected of social care workers. The document is entitled ‘Code of Professional Practice for Social Care (the Code).

15. The leading authority on the approach to take to an application to extend an interim order remains General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, in which the Court of Appeal set out a number of principles which are routinely applied by the Administrative Court, in dealing with the same applications from a number of statutory regulators with the same or very similar statutory functions to the Applicant.

16. In summary, the Tribunal must independently determine whether the extension is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the registered person's own interest, applying the same criteria as for the original interim order. The burden rests on the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the extension criteria are satisfied. The Tribunal does not conduct a full merits hearing or make primary findings of fact but assesses whether the allegations justify continuing the interim order. The Tribunal should take into account the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons why the case has not concluded and the prejudice to the registered person if an interim order is continued. The Tribunal must reach its decision on the basis of the evidence in the application, which includes evidence as to the opinion of the Applicant and its Interim Orders Panel as to the need for an interim order. Finally, the Tribunal is not bound to follow or defer to these opinions, but it should give such weight as it considers appropriate in the circumstances. Preliminary issues

17. The Respondent, Ms Nomi, did not attend the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (the Rules), the Tribunal has the power to proceed in a party’s absence if it is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing and the Tribunal considers it in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

18. The Tribunal administration confirmed with the Tribunal that Ms Nomi responded to an email, sent by the Tribunal administration on 28 November 2025. The Tribunal administration’s email concerned the details to join the video hearing on 2 December 2025. In her email, in response, Ms Nomi set out the following: I wish to formally notify you that I will not be attending the forthcoming video meeting. Given that my position as a carer has effectively been terminated, I do not consider participation to be of any relevance.At present, I am not monitoring emails due to personal circumstances and reduced capacity. I therefore kindly request that you refrain from contacting me further unless and until my registration has been formally struck off.Thank you for your understanding.

19. Ms Casey confirmed that other than Ms Nomi attending the first interim order hearing on 2 July 2024, this was the only further engagement from Ms Nomi in the case.

20. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Nomi has been notified of the 2 December 2025 hearing. That much was clear from her email of 28 November 2025. The Tribunal concluded that Ms Nomi has voluntarily absented herself from the hearing. The Tribunal then went on to conclude that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Furthermore, the interim order is due to expire on 1 January 2026 and if the hearing did not proceed on 2 December 2025, it would have been unlikely that it could be rearranged for a date before the expiry of the interim order. The Tribunal had regard to the statutory function of the Applicant and balanced it against the right of Ms Nomi to attend and engage in the proceedings. Given her indication to the Tribunal and the limited engagement with the application to this Tribunal, the Tribunal concluded that not proceeding with the hearing today would not result in Ms Nomi’s attendance and would run counter to Rule 2 of the Rules (the overriding objective) as it would run the real risk of expiry of the interim order without due and proper consideration by this Tribunal.

21. As a result, the Tribunal decided it was proportionate, fair and just to proceed with the hearing in the Respondent’s absence. Evidence

22. In addition to Mrs Lane’s oral evidence, the Tribunal considered a hearing bundle consisting of 270 digital pages. The Tribunal also had the benefit of a skeleton argument from the Respondent dated 19 November 2025.

23. In oral evidence, Mrs Lane confirmed that there had been delay caused by a period of time when capacity meant she was not able to progress the fitness to practise investigation as quickly as she would have wished and that she had a period of leave due to illness. At this point, the case has been referred for consideration by an internal case conference, which will take place on 16 December 2025, after the deadline of 12 December 2025 for Ms Nomi to provide any representations and further evidence, in response to the fitness to practise investigation of the Applicant, which includes signed witness statements from three witnesses. After the internal case conference, the case will then be referred to a case examiner for consideration on 19 December 2025. It is anticipated that the case will be referred to the Fitness to Practise Committee for consideration at a final hearing. This will mean that the case will be sent to the Applicant’s solicitors to draft an allegation for consideration at the hearing – within three weeks of the beginning of January 2026. The Applicant will then arrange a prehearing review with a legal advisor, which may generate additional lines of inquiry (bearing in mind that the additional, fourth potential witness has not engaged at all). The Applicant must then ensure it provides statutory notice to Ms Nomi before the hearing takes place before the Fitness to Practise Committee. In Mrs Lane’s estimation, the earliest date for the final hearing is likely to be the first week of April 2026.

24. Mrs Lane made clear that if the Tribunal decided to extend the interim order, the case would be sent to the Interim Orders Panel for a review hearing within three months of the date of extension. The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons

25. We carefully considered all of the evidence in the appeal, which included the views of the Applicant and the Interim Orders Panel, as well as Ms Nomi’s position.

26. We concluded that the threshold for an interim order to be extended is met. Some form of interim restriction remains necessary for protection of the public as the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the risk of repetition had been lessened due to the limited engagement from Ms Nomi. The engagement, thus far, did not allay the ongoing concern about a risk of repetition, given the nature of the allegations, which can reasonably be defined as professional boundary/judgment concerns. In the circumstances, in order to conclude that the risk of repetition has been lessened, the Tribunal would need to see significant and credible evidence of reflection and remediation. The Tribunal did not have any information to lead it to conclude that there has been a period of reflection and understanding of the seriousness of the alleged conduct. In the Tribunal’s view, the interim response remains proportionate, particularly in the absence of any information about the impact of the order on Ms Nomi or any work that she has done since the incident to demonstrate remediation and an understanding of the importance of clear professional boundaries in the context of caring for vulnerable adults.

27. Next, the Tribunal found that an interim order remains necessary in order to meet the public interest. The public interest concerns not only the interest of a reasonably informed member of the public, but the interests of other social care workers, in ensuring that individuals under investigation for serious allegations which concern a serious breach of professional boundaries are not able to practise unrestricted unless there are very clear reasons why an interim order is not necessary. Again, due to the lack of any meaningful engagement from Ms Nomi, the Tribunal does not consider this case to be one which may have met any exceptional circumstances for not continuing to impose interim restrictions.

28. Further, the Tribunal took into account the views of the Applicant and the Interim Orders Panel. The Tribunal paid careful regard to the fact that the interim order is subject to a relatively frequent review by a specialist panel and, of course, the fact that at any point, Ms Nomi can request an earlier review of the interim order and one will be held.

29. Finally, the proportionality assessment also required the Tribunal to consider the justification for a six-month extension. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the delay are unfortunate, but have been explained by Mrs Lane, in her oral evidence. Mrs Lane provided a full explanation as to likely next steps with the investigation, which led the Tribunal to conclude that six months is a realistic timescale. It is a matter for the Applicant’s regulatory process, but it does not seem appropriate to subject Ms Nomi to further delay in the resolution of this referral by seeking to pursue the engagement of a witness who has, hitherto, not responded to the reasonable attempts to engage them. The Tribunal would consider it concerning to see a further application to extend the interim order, given that it relates to an incident which happened over two years ago.

30. We balance these factors, taking into account that we are not making findings of fact at this stage, but engaging in an assessment of risk, based on the evidence from the Applicant only. At the present time, we were assured that the outstanding steps in the regulatory process will now move expeditiously, with a view to a swift resolution, not only for Ms Nomi, but for the wider public interest. We have concluded that the interim order remains necessary and proportionate. Therefore, it should be extended for the requested period of six months. IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 148(2)(c) of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the interim order is extended for six months until 1 July 2026. Judge S Brownlee Care Standards Tribunal First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date issued: 03 December 2025