[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)

first, she says that she did not know what the cautions were for, until some time in mid-January 2022. Documentation of the events of mid-January 2022 by the fostering agency indicate that B contended that DJB did know what the cautions were for. It seems to us, on the balance of probabilities, that DBS did not make a mistake in implying in this core finding that DJB knew that the cautions were for sexual offences: it seems implausible that B would have told DJB of the cautions, and that the conversation would have stopped there – and even if that were the case, in our view DJB had what is sometimes called “Nelsonian” knowledge that the cautions were for sexual offences i.e. the only reason she did not press B for full details, is that she knew, or highly suspected, what the answer would be, and that it would be troublesome for her (and that is the only reason she did not press him for the full details).

in our view, it is because DJB knew that the cautions were for sexual offences (i.e. for something with potentially serious implications for her role as C’s foster carer), that she was keen for the foster agency to “check” B and, if necessary in the course of that, for B to “tell his own story”;

second, DJB says that these were not convictions, as the core finding says, but rather cautions. We agree that DBS made a mistake in referring to them here as “convictions” rather than “cautions” – however, this is not in our view a “material” mistake i.e. one that made a difference to the outcome (the decision to include DJB in the barred lists). This is because, in the context of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, a caution for sexual offences is, in and of itself, undoubtedly relevant information.