Clement Longe

Introduction

Clement Longe is a care worker who worked in Musselburgh, East Lothian, and was removed from the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) register after a conviction for theft from a vulnerable person in their care. Longe admitted using the bank card of a person they supported at an ATM and stealing £700 across two incidents in September 2024, was convicted of the offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on October 31, 2025, and was struck off after an SSSC Fitness to Practise Panel hearing in August 2026 found their fitness to practise impaired.

Background Information

Longe worked as a care worker in Musselburgh, supporting a vulnerable service user. Over two separate incidents in September 2024, Longe took the service user’s bank card to an ATM. They admitted taking £200 with the intention of paying it back and hoped to do so without anyone finding out, and also explained that they took a further £500 under the pretence of going to the shops, using the service user’s bank card to withdraw the money.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Longe’s conviction for theft at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on October 31, 2025 was a matter of court record, and Longe admitted the facts of the case at the SSSC hearing. The panel’s characterisations of the behaviour as deliberate, planned and an abuse of power are regulatory findings; no further criminal counts were reported.

The SSSC described the conviction as a serious breach of trust and professional standards. At the Fitness to Practise Panel hearing on August 17 and 18, 2026, it was decided that Longe’s actions amounted to impaired fitness to practise. The panel said: “The offence that you have been convicted of is a very serious breach of trust involving a vulnerable service user who should be able to have confidence in the workers who are supporting them.” It added: “It is also highly likely that an informed member of the public would lose confidence in the SSSC as a regulator of the profession if no action was taken in such circumstances.”

The panel found that Longe’s behaviour was deliberate, planned and constituted a significant abuse of power and trust, and concluded that only a removal order was appropriate. It said: “The panel considered that a removal order is the most appropriate sanction, as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest, and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession.” The panel “could only come to the view that dishonest behaviour of this kind, where the victim of your conduct was a vulnerable service user, is so serious that it is clearly behaviour which is incompatible with registration.”

Public Reaction and Consequences

During the hearing, Longe admitted the facts of the case and expressed regret, saying they had learned a very important lesson. Longe said they did not intend to cause harm and acknowledged the emotional impact on the person they supported, and told the panel they had gained a better understanding of the code of practice in the nearly two years since the incident, believing such behaviour would never happen again.

Despite this, the panel found that the aggravating factors — including the deliberate and repeated nature of the theft and the abuse of a vulnerable person’s trust — far outweighed any mitigation. The SSSC’s presenter, solicitor Rebekah McNeill, argued that anything less than removal would undermine public confidence in the profession, and the panel agreed that a warning or suspension would not be sufficient to protect the public or uphold the public interest. It concluded: “A vulnerable member of the public suffered harm and the panel believed that any informed member of the public would consider that the SSSC had failed in its duties to protect the public if it did not impose a removal order, thus significantly damaging its reputation as the regulator of the profession.” It added: “The panel recognised that this order will impose hardship on you; however, in balancing the factors under its consideration, the panel was satisfied that this decision is proportionate and necessary.” The removal order is subject to an appeal period before taking full effect.

Current Status

Longe is removed from the SSSC register, subject to the standard appeal period before the removal takes full effect. The regulator accepted at the hearing that Longe had expressed regret and insight, but treated the theft from a vulnerable service user as conduct incompatible with registration regardless. No appeal against the removal was reported in the sources covering the case.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The conviction and removal ended Longe’s career in registered social care in Scotland. The case shows how the SSSC weighs mitigation — admissions, regret, and nearly two years of demonstrated understanding — against the aggravating features of theft from a vulnerable service user, and why it concluded that honesty breaches targeting the very person in a worker’s care leave no proportionate option short of removal. The panel’s hardship acknowledgment made explicit that it understood the personal cost of the order and imposed it anyway as proportionate and necessary in the public interest.