Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 17 (AAC)

Fecha: 09-Jun-2022

The DBS’s barring decision

The DBS’s barring decision

Initially DBS were considering 2 further allegations of relevant conduct which are outlined in their minded to bar letter of 11.4.22. The first of these was that during the period between August 2016 and April 2018, when employed as a Youth Worker at Young People First, the Appellant blurred the professional boundaries of his role in a number of respects. Secondly, when employed as a caretaker the Appellant contacted young people (believed to be children - under 18 years) via social media and invited them into school premises without permission and out of hours, resulting in damage being caused. These matters did not form part of the DBS’s findings of relevant conduct in the barring decision of DBS and are not included in the final decision letter. We simply refer to them for the sake of completeness.

10.

The DBS final decision letter of 9.6.22 states that DBS was satisfied on the balance of probabilities, having considered all the information, that JA had committed relevant conduct. It made the following two findings of relevant conduct:

“Between the dates of 16 - 18 December 2019, engaged in sexually motivated communications with who you believed was a 15-year-old boy named "L" (decoy) via Grinder and WhatsApp. After being told that the decoy was 15 years old and that he was a schoolboy, you continued to engage and:

- shared pictures of yourself in your boxer shorts (underwear)

- asked "L" how many inches his penis was

- asked "L" to sneak in to their bedroom to ‘mess about’

- attempted to meet with "L" at what you thought was their home address

- asked "L" for pictures of himself in his underwear/ nude

Following your arrest on 19 December 2019, you were found to be in possession of a Category C Indecent Image of a Child, (created on 21 July 2019) depicting a naked 10–12-year-old male child in the back seat of a car, with his bare buttocks exposed.

11.

The reasoning of the DBS in its final decision letter also included the following:

The DBS acknowledges that you have disputed these allegations in your representations, however having re-examined and considered the evidence we hold, we are satisfied that the above allegations remain substantiated on the balance of probabilities. We recognise that you have told us in representations that you were not aware of and did not know how the Category C Indecent Image of a Child was on your device. You explained this as possibly being planted on the device by the witness (member of the CIM group), which we found to be an implausible explanation as the image was created before the interactions with the decoy. Therefore, whilst we accept that the police could not substantiate to a legal burden of proof i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe that the police evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that you were in possession of an indecent image of a child. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated.”