![[2025] UKUT 113 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
A summary of the factual background
A summary of the factual background
The Appellant, a gay man, had a successful career as a teacher before suffering some form of breakdown. In 2017 he returned to work, taking on a challenging role as the primary school teacher for a year 5 class that presented with considerable behavioural problems. At the same time, the Appellant experienced intense stress in his private life. He suffered with mental health issues and began abusing alcohol and drugs. He also exchanged sexual messages with strangers on social media platforms and engaged in casual sex with other gay men who he met through such apps and invited to his (shared) house.
In 2018 the Appellant was arrested by the police following a report by a witness (“Witness A”) that the Appellant had sent him an electronic message stating that he had engaged in sexual activity with one or more children. The police issued the Appellant with a caution for possession of a Class A drug (crystal meth), but after some investigation took no further action on the sexual messages sent using various platforms (nor did the police take action in relation to a memory stick containing indecent images of children (“IIOC”) that the police somehow contrived to lose).
Late in 2022 the Teaching Regulatory Authority (“TRA”) held a professional conduct hearing, which the Appellant did not attend (in the light of his concerns about his mental health). The TRA considered four allegations at the hearing, namely:
In or around April 2018, the Appellant was in possession of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine).
He accepted a police caution in respect of his conduct at allegation 1 for the offence of possession of a controlled substance contrary to Section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
He exchanged electronic messages with [Witness A] in which he stated that he had engaged in sexual activity with one or more children or used words to that effect.
His conduct as may be proven at allegation 3 demonstrated a sexual interest in children and/or was sexually motivated.
In summary, the Appellant admitted the first two allegations put by the TRA but denied allegations 3 and 4. However, the TRA found all the charges to be made out and recommended that the Secretary of State should issue a prohibition order.
The DBS considered the Appellant’s case in both 2020 and 2022 but on each occasion decided that it was not appropriate to bar the Appellant. However, in 2024 the DBS reviewed the case after the findings by the TRA panel (and further material disclosed from the police investigation) became available and then decided to include the Appellant on the Children’s Barred List.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service was not based on any material mistake in any finding of fact and involved no mistake on
- Introduction
- A summary of the factual background
- The Upper Tribunal oral hearing
- The legal framework for barring decisions
- The Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision in 2024 to bar the Appellant
- The Appellant’s grounds of appeal
- The Appellant’s oral evidence
- Mistake of fact and the electronic messaging with Witness A
- Did the Appellant exchange electronic messages with Witness A?
- Did the Appellant state that he had engaged in sexual activity with one or more children (or use words to that effect)
- Did the Appellant’s conduct demonstrate a sexual interest in children and/or was sexually motivated?
- Mistake of fact and the alleged possession of IIOC
- The error of law arguments
- The Appellant’s other arguments
- Disposal
- Conclusions