Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The procedural fairness limitations of fitness ...

Electronic data

  • Legal_Studies_resubmission - August - with names-1

    Rights statement: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, 39 (2), pp 339-357 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press.

    Accepted author manuscript, 346 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings: A case study into social work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/06/2019
<mark>Journal</mark>Legal Studies
Issue number2
Volume39
Number of pages19
Pages (from-to)339-357
Publication statusPublished
Early online date23/04/19
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

The norm in fitness to practise proceedings (FTPP) is that where sanctions might be imposed procedural fairness requires a court-like hearing. This paper questions that paradigm, using empirical research to focus on the FTPP to which social workers must account. Procedural fairness is a multi-faceted legitimising
concept used to justify the design of decision-making processes. With FTPPs, the major justification is an ‘instrumentally’ focused model of procedural fairness which prioritises making decisions that look right, a goal which is delivered in the context of social work. But other justifications for procedural fairness
are inadequately fulfilled, with in particular a ‘dignitarian’ respect not achieved due to the high levels of non-attendance by registrant social workers. Further, procedural fairness as ‘public accountability’ is undermined due to the relative lack of engagement of FTPPs with the perspective of the social work community.
These findings hint that in the context of a poorly organised and resource-poor profession other hybrid forms of FTPP might have a stronger claim to procedural fairness than the court-like model.

Bibliographic note

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, ? (?), pp ??-??https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, 39 (2), pp 339-357 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press. 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press.