[2024] UKUT 440 (AAC)

For present purposes we need only summarise the main features of the DBS process as follows. In the Final Decision letter dated 7 April 2022, the DBS set out the grounds for reaching its decision to place JC on the Barred Lists. It was satisfied that JC had engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children and vulnerable adults. It stated that JC did not dispute that he had had sex with NR. However, he maintained that he thought she was an adult aged 18 and never had reason to question NR’s age. The DBS said that JC suggested NR did not present as 15 and if he had any doubts, this would never have occurred. He challenged NR’s account that they had first met at school and that during the residential she had sneaked out to meet him. He denied that he asked NR for sexual intercourse or sexual favours and denied asking or encouraging NR to perform oral sex on him. He suggested NR called him at the centre one evening and asked him to go over to her flat for a sexual favour. The DBS said that he agreed and had sexual intercourse.

He confirmed NR’s mother visited him shortly afterwards to express her displeasure but did not mention her age. The DBS said that JC agreed and thought it was due to his ethnicity. It is said by JC that until February 2020 he had no idea that he had had sex with NR when she was under 16 and suggested he was devastated when he discovered she was a child and was ashamed of his actions.

In the letter DBS continued by stating that it was satisfied that NR was credible and that her account that JC was aware of her age was reliable, which was largely corroborated in witness statements from her mother, sister, and friend all of whom are regarded as credible and reliable. This view is supported by a priest, DHS’ account who confirmed that at the age of 14/15, pupils would take part in preparation for Confirmation including a residential period at the centre. The DBS letter continued that NR stated that he knew her age due to the confirmation group being all school age students and she specifically told him when her birthday was. Given her credible account corroborated by multiple sources the DBS felt that there was no reason to doubt this. This is further supported by NR’s statement that JC made it clear to her that he did not want anyone to find out about the relationship. NR’s mother provided further corroborating evidence that when she found out that NR had had sex with JC age 15 and she went to see him where he was staying where he acknowledged that NR was too young. NR’s mother said that JC did not mention that he had not known her age but accepted it was a stupid thing to do. She corroborated NR’s account that JC definitely knew her age due to the confirmation group all being around 14/15 years old.

The DBS letter continued that JC's version that he thought she was 18 was considered to be unreliable given the compelling evidence that he was fully aware of her age through meeting her in his position of trust as a youth worker, at school, in her uniform before she specifically told him her age and birthday. The DBS said that the LADO’s evidence corroborated NR’s account and it was established by the LADO that he worked as a church volunteer in her school and that this is most likely how he came to meet her as alleged by NR. DBS said that the LADO substantiated the allegation and considered the relationship was a breach of trust and there was no reason to reach a different conclusion.

In their letter, the DBS said that given the compelling evidence that JC was aware of NR’s age and that he accepted that he had sexual relationship with NR, the DBS was satisfied that sometime between February and June 1998, whilst he was 25 years old, JC abused his position of trust as a youth worker when he engaged in conduct of a sexual nature including sexual intercourse with NR, a 15 year old female child whom he met through his work at School A where she was a pupil.