[2025] UKUT 329 (AAC)

At the hearing, Mr Tinkler, for DBS, examined the Appellant.

Mr Tinkler put it to the Appellant that, by saying he accepted a police caution due to a ‘lack of understanding’ he was attempting to play down the incident’s significance. The Appellant said he was not trying to pass on blame and did not consider any of the three incidents to be ‘small’. His point was only that he did not, at the time, understand the consequences of accepting a police caution. The Appellant added that he was not ‘a nice person’ 20 or so years ago but with the support of probation services, and therapy, realised that he needed to ensure he did not continue down the wrong path. He had worked all his life and now had a stable, responsible job in the IT sector.

Mr Tinkler asked the Appellant if he was now saying that he did not commit the assault that was the subject of his second police caution. The Appellant said he was not, but the first blow was struck by the youth, and he thinks that the youth should also have received some kind of punishment.

Mr Tinkler put it to the Appellant that his argument that the assault on his partner should have ‘no bearing’ on his suitability to work with children demonstrated a lack of understanding that such an assault could give rise to legitimate concerns. The Appellant replied, ‘I accept what you’re saying’ but asked for some consideration to be given to the fact that he is not a particularly articulate person. Mr Tinkler suggested that this was indicative of the Appellant’s belief that his actions could be ‘swept away’.

The Appellant was asked why he had not provided evidence of the therapy he claimed to have undergone. He replied that it did not end until January this year. Mr Tinkler asked if this was therapy connected to the incidents 20 or so years ago. He said no and that support in coming to terms with those incidents was provided by a probation officer. Mr Tinkler asked the Appellant why he had not provided evidence from the probation service. He replied that he was ‘not used to this sort of thing’ and ‘maybe I should have got representation’, but that, anyway, the probation office was now closed. Mr Tinkler asked the Appellant why he did not mention therapy in correspondence. The Appellant replied that he ‘could not answer that’ but could obtain a letter from his therapist if that would be useful.

Mr Tinkler put it to the Appellant that DBS’ minded to bar letter clearly demonstrated that they were aware of his criminal history and considered that it raised doubts about his suitability to work with children. He might not have agreed with that analysis, but he surely understood it DBS. The Appellant replied, ‘I completely understand’ but added that he had previously been issued with a number of DBS certificates. However, he regretted ignoring DBS’ minded to bar letter.