AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)

MD and SF rely upon a series of matters which are said to establish that there is no risk of repetition. These involve some factual matters said to have occurred before the SSE imposed the prohibition orders, and some subsequent matters.

On the basis of the material which MD chose to place before them, the PCP concluded that there was a risk of repetition. The PCP found that MD’s conduct continued for 3 months after the December 2018 inspection. The SSE, based on those findings, concluded that MD did present a risk of re-offending, Once again, that determination was one it was open to the SSE to reach, in what was essentially a forward-looking evaluative exercise. It is not open to MD to rely on events after the prohibition orders were imposed for the purposes of challenging the SSE’s decision.

Turning to SF, as noted above the PCP found that he had continued working at ACE after receiving the warning of a possible offence following the Ofsted inspection in December 2018. The SSE relied on that finding to conclude that there was a risk of SF re-offending. This was a forward-looking evaluative exercise, and the SSE’s conclusion cannot be said to be wrong.