[2025] UKUT 17 (AAC)

JA gave evidence for well over an hour at hearing. He stated he had a diagnosis of dyspraxia. Counsel had discussed this prior to hearing and agreed to adapt their questions accordingly. He was quite open regarding his use of the Grindr app as a way of meeting people to “hook up”. In his evidence in chief, he essentially agreed with MB’s account of the messages between him and “L” with the crucial exception of “L" stating that he was 15, which he denied. He also denied asking if he could “sneak in” to “L’s” house and said it was unlikely he would have used that specific phrase but may have used an alternative phrase. He also confirmed he had sent 3 photos of himself to “L” and had requested photos from him. He denied sending the message “25 and in Warwick” although he admitted he had said he was from Warwick, and he was 25 years old at the time.

JA confirmed he enjoyed working with young people and had had several roles in the past including as a youth worker and working as a caretaker at a school. He stated he liked to help and inspire young people, and he has a degree in outdoor education. He had also undertaken significant safeguarding training in the past and was qualified as a level 2 youth worker. JA confirmed he had an additional job in a security role which involved checking people’s identification to ensure they were old enough to buy drinks. He stated he was quite good at spotting underage people as these days “you could not always tell”.

JA also confirmed he attended the meeting point at the petrol station on 18^th December 2019 but when members of the Children's Innocence Matters (CIM) group arrived he was worried he was being car jacked and drove off. He stated he was concerned CIM would find his location and that is why he deleted the Grindr app shortly thereafter.

In cross examination the Appellant confirmed he had obtained GCSE’s, A levels and a foundation degree and had completed safeguarding training. He initially stated this did not involve safeguarding training in relation to online safety and said this would be more relevant in the last 10 years. However, he subsequently conceded during cross-examination the training probably did cover the online safety of young people (albeit not his online safety). We note the Appellant undertook safeguarding training prior to his employment in CE Primary School. This was not referred to in his evidence. He confirmed the account of the exchange of messages in MB’s statement was accurate with the exception of the ages of the participants being included and the fact he would not have used the phrase “sneak in” (but may have used an alternative phrase). Regarding the message “25 and in Warwick” he stated he “did not believe that message was sent”. He conceded he had said at some point he lived in Warwick (albeit not in that message) and that this age was correct at that time.

In response to questions in relation to “L’s” reference to his stepdad picking up his little sister and the fact that “L” lived at home with his mother, the Appellant stated this did not raise any alarm bells as to “L’s” age as he too lived at home with his mother and had a sibling. He stated he assumed everyone who used Grindr was 18 as that is part of the terms and conditions. JA denied Mr Serr’s suggestion that he switched the conversation to WhatsApp to make the communications more anonymous as he was aware he was in contact with a 15-year-old boy. It was also suggested to the Appellant the fact he drove to meet “L” was suggestive of the latter not being able to drive due to the fact he was 15. He also denied “L’s” suggestion the Appellant wait until the house was empty indicated he was under 18.