Conspiring to Murder Social Work

A social worker convicted in 1995 of Conspiracy to Commit Murder (of her ex husband) has hit the headlines again after she was caught out lying under oath in Court proceedings. Lynda Barnes (and not Linda Barnes) of the same local authority that employs her, Bath and North East Somerset (http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/bathnes) have suspended the team manager and referred her to the GSCC (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/) . Her misleading evidence came to light after a social worker she managed blew the whistle when Barnes asked her to conspire by also giving false evidence, and this was reported to the Court.

Barnes it is alleged was something a a ‘force to reckon with’ according to some reports and her team were not confident under her leadership.

I first came across this report earlier this week in the Blog of Allan Norman (a social worker and solicitor closely associated with BASW and of the Birmingham law firm Celtic Knot (http://www.celticknot.org.uk/). His Blog article can be found here and is worth reading: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/06/murder-and-mayhem-in-the-world.html

Since then the full story can be found on community care (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/06/18/111871/agencies-rapped-over-murder-conspiracy-social-worker.html and the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html).

Top marks however to Allan Norman in his blog who rightly tries to draw a balance on the issues of the right of the public to know these facts (and the consequential further battering social care will get in the press) with the further possible consequence that the right to be rehabilitated under the rehabilitation of offenders act will be harmed.

At the root of this matter, it seems to me, is the fact that there was a very unhappy team who (reading between the lines of some reports) felt intimidated by Barnes who was initially employed as a assistant team manager and later team manager – where were the more senior managers and what were they doing in the interim before it took some brave junior social worker to voice her concerns? It does not look good in terms of developing a safe and professional working environment where the lives of children and families are paramount. Had there been such a safe environment perhaps Barnes may have not been able to operate with, what is implied, intimidation, and ultimately deceit not only to the Court and all its parties but also to the social work profession.

The High Court judgement on the application not to name Barnes is set out here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2009/B11.html and is again worth a full read.

To date there is nothing (as usual) on the GSCC website relating to this matter although they too were criticised (along with Bath and North East Somerset Council) in their failings to allow Barnes to be registered as a social worker. My cynicism (but also based on much research) suggests to me that the GSCC will never publish themselves any criticism of the GSCC. They have however made a statement reported by Community Care in their article, essentially saying that Barnes was already employed, had good references and after the passage of time could be considered rehabilitated – for once, that seems not an unreasonable response for the GSCC.

What was however is alarming is that in the Independent report (see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html) it was revealed that the NSPCC were to verify by way of its own investigations the confirmation of the local authority that Barnes involvement in other Court case matters had not (in effect) led to any miscarriages of justice. That I find ironic in the extreme as the NSPCC are the least qualified to adjudicate on such matters, especially (but not exclusively) following the Climbe review where they themselves were found to have ‘doctored’ evidence in order to try to cover up failings in practice – essentially that which Barnes is accused of!

At the time (of the Inquiry) it was widely reported that the NSPCC had to be forced to produce ‘original’ documents for scrutiny after initially submitting photocopy paperwork heavily ‘redacted.’ And guess what, the photocopy evidence and the original paperwork, when finally grabbed from the NSPCC, were somewhat and significantly different – in short they attempted to mislead a Court of Inquiry. There are numerous articles in the press but I think the following is the best by Dea Birkett in her Gaurdian Article in 2002: (http://www.deabirkett.com/pages/journalism_film/journalism/it_needs_to_be_stopped.htm)

She gives a good account of the NSPCC cynical approach, incompetence and self serving attitude whilst giving the very false impression of being the guardians of child welfare – more like guardian of our pay packets. And what have the GSCC done about this – nothing. And anyone expects the NSPCC to be competent in auditing others while it cannot audit itself. Gawd help the social care profession. Gawd help children.

Barnes appears to be one of those who as a profession we regret having allowed into our ranks. She is, or will be gone, but she has done so much damage to our profession. Shame on you an good bye.

Wilt