[2024] UKUT 126 (AAC)

We are satisfied that you meet the criteria for regulated activity because you have worked as a Support worker with […] Recruitment.

We have reviewed all the information we hold and are satisfied of the following:

The DBS is satisfied you have engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children.

This is because it has been established that you have behaved inappropriately towards a child as when CHILD spat water at you, it has been determined that you were unable to control your emotions and have responded to this by hitting him on his upper body, chest and shoulders. You have also threatened further violence saying if he hit you, you would hit him back. It is considered that after the incident you were angry and so it is considered possible that you were angry before this at the time of the incident and that this was potentially a contributory factor to your behaviour. It is unknown if this incident has caused harm, although CHILD had marks on him after the incident we are unable to say if this is what caused the marks or not but it is considered that your behaviour could cause harm.

It is noted that there have not been any previous concerns about your behaviour suggesting that you have behaved appropriately previously, although you were only in your role as a support worker for a few months. It has also been established that at the time of the incident you admitted assaulting CHILD but then have subsequently denied touching him in your police interview suggesting you have changed your account. It is acknowledged that in your representations from your solicitors you have continued to deny assaulting CHILD or saying if he hit you, you would hit him. You also denied that you had admittined [sic] assaulting him, however we have information that is considered credible that you did admit assaulting him and there was a witness who saw you do this and say that you would hit him if he hit you, there is no information in your representations that has challeneged [sic] the credibility of this information and so it is still considered credible. It was also suggested in your representations that you were assualted [sic] by CHILD and when [AD] came in he continued making contact with you, however we have no other infomration [sic] to be able to confirm this only that you were seen to assault him. Your solicitors have also suggested that you did not receive Team Teach training or training or information about restraints but there is information that REDACTED requested that all agency staff had some sort of restraint training and so it is considered likely that you would have had some training in this area but even if you had not this would not justify assaulting a child.

In your representations you [sic] solicitors said apparently another carer intervened in the incident but refused to give a statement to the police and they suggested that if you had been in the wrong they had no doubt the person would have made a statement against you, there is though nothing to support this, there could be a number of reasons why someone would not be willing to make a statement to the police and the fact they did not would not be considered evidence that the incident did not occur. It has been established that you have not considered the harm your behaviour could cause, you were unable to control your emotions when you have behaved in the way you have and there is no evidence that you have taken action to address your behaviour so it is considered you could repeat your behaviour in future if you were in a similar situation. If you were unable to control your emotions then you could react in a violent manner which could cause harm.

It is acknowledged that if you were to be barred on the Children’s List then this would restrict your opportunities to work/volunteer with children where you have worked as a support worker, thus this would affect your Article 8 rights and potentially your future earnings. However as it has been established that you have been unable to control your emotions as when CHILD has spat water at you rather than moving away of [sic] de-escalating the situation, you have reacted by hitting him. It is unknown if any harm was caused by your behaviour but it is considered that your behaviour could cause harm.

It is acknowledged that there have not been any previous concerns about your behaviour suggesting that you have behaved appropriately previously, although you were only in your role as a support worker for a few months. After admiiting [sic] to hitting CHILD at the time of the incident you have then subsequently denied touching him in your police interview and have continued to deny your behaviour in your representations. It is considered that you were unable to control your emotions when you have behaved in the way you have and so it is considered you could repeat your behaviour in future if you were in a similar situation. Due to the seriousness of the safeguarding concerns and the possibility of the behaviour being repeated in future and [sic] it is not considered that there are sufficient safeguarding measures in place then a barring decision on the Children's List is considered a necessary and proportionate safeguarding measure.

As a result, we included your name in the Children's Barred List using our barring powers as defined in Schedule 3, paragraph 3 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA) on 31/03/2022.”.