[2025] UKUT 329 (AAC)

The Appellant’s written submissions provide his description of the events which led to his May 2000 caution for an offence under section 4A(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986:

“I was on a night out after my birthday celebrations and was singing the national anthem outside of a nightclub…I was asked to be quiet by the police and refused to quieten down believing I was well within my rights to be singing. The police asked me again to be quiet and I called them several names which resulted in them giving me a caution. I understand I was out of order by shouting at them with abusive language and completely accept this was wrong in this case. However, this is the background to the caution which did not yield any harm to a child.”

The Appellant describes the circumstances of the 2003 caution for common assault as follows:

“[the] incident…occurred after a night out with my then partner. We were walking home and we were being overly loud walking. At this point, someone came out of their house and told me to shut up and be quiet. This person, approached me and pushed me and I reacted by punching back once which struck him. This person then went home and nothing more was mentioned. I was not aware of this person being of that age and although I should not have punched back, i was defending myself against someone who at the time, even though I was older, was in fact bigger than I was at the time. I was not aware of this person being that age they were. This person struck me first. I accepted the caution due to lack of understanding at the time.”

In relation to the third, and clearly most significant, offence, the Appellant accepts that it was a serious assault and wrote “there is no excuse for this incident”. However, he argues that it should not, some 20 years later, have any bearing on whether he can work with children. At the hearing, the Appellant informed us that there was no excuse for his behaviour, he was in an abusive relationship and ‘took it too far’. He remained disturbed by his actions and it ‘still hurts’, although he has remained close to the woman who was the victim of the assault and with whom he shares a child.

The Appellant provided a reference from the Head Coach of a local football club. Dated 30 November 2023, the reference states as follows:

“I first met [the Appellant] in March 2016 when his son…joined [the club’s] u11s who I was coaching. The following season [the Appellant] began refereeing matches for [the club’s] u12s at my request. He continued refereeing matches for this team as they progressed through the age groups, during which time [the Appellant] became a qualified referee.

I was always impressed with the way that [the Appellant] would conduct himself whilst officiating matches, talking to the players and explaining decisions without prejudice or arrogance. He was able to apply humour while maintaining authority and dignity.

Such was the impression he made upon me as a referee that I subsequently asked him to officiate matches for [T] Football Academy where I was also coaching. [The Appellant] handled the step up to…Premier level very well, demonstrating that he was not only technically capable but also able to handle the increased pressure at that level.

There was never an occasion that [the Appellant] became stressed or frustrated, keeping calm at all times, and I have had no safeguarding concerns regarding [the Appellant] as either a referee or a parent.

His approach set the precedent for the behaviour of players that he refereed. I would have no hesitation in saying that [the Appellant] was an impeccable role model for the children he came into contact with.

[The Appellant’s son], inspired by his father, became a qualified referee himself during his time playing for [the club]. After [the son] stopped playing football (post u16s) I continued to call on the services of [the Appellant] to referee matches for me.

In all my interactions with him I have found [the Appellant] to be honest, trustworthy and virtuous. It is my opinion that [the Appellant] is not only a good referee but a good human being with sound values and morals.”

At the hearing, the Appellant said that, over the last 20 years, he had played an increasingly active role in the life of his community and believed that his football coaching for children had had a particularly positive impact. His youngest son found it very difficult to understand why his father was not allowed to be a football coach.

The Appellant told us that he was a changed person, and not who he was 20 years ago. He was ‘very confused’ as to why DBS, after issuing Enhanced Disclosure Certificates in connection with his football coaching / refereeing, suddenly decided that he was unsafe to be around children.