[2025] UKUT 113 (AAC)

The second question then is whether the messages sent by the Appellant stated in them that he had engaged in sexual activity with one or more children or used words to that effect.

We recognise that in the lexicon of adult gay males the use of the term ‘boy’ (or even ‘teen’) does not necessarily connote a male under the age of 18, but rather an adult male younger than the speaker. Likewise, we acknowledge that the use of numbers (e.g. ‘a lovely 7’) may be referring to another male’s anatomy (specifically his penis size) rather than a child’s age in years. We therefore accept that this linguistic explanation may well account for some of the messages sent by the Appellant, which as such may not be untoward in the sense of being indicative of child sexual abuse.

The difficulty for the Appellant is that this somewhat semantic explanation is only partially effective. In particular, it does not account for all the messages that he posted via his mobile phone. Two examples will suffice. First, Witness A sent the Appellant a message on Wickr stating “Age is just a number” and posing the question “How low have you been?”. To which the Appellant replies “13”. The Appellant sought to argue that that may have been a response to a different question as the question and answer appear on different screen shots, but the message are timed at 03:19 and 03:20 respectively. Secondly, and a little later in the same conversation on Wickr, Witness A asks “How old are ur regulars?” to which the immediate response (on the same screenshot) is “14”.

The TRA panel dealt with both examples in its fully reasoned decision. As to the former, the TRA panel concluded that “the answer ‘13’ was more likely than not a reference to the youngest sexual partner that [the Appellant] was asserting he had had.” The panel observed that the explanation premised on the size of the male anatomy made no sense in this context. As to the latter, the panel understandably concluded that “given the specific and unambiguous nature of the question … [the Appellant’s] answer was more likely than not a reference to the expressed age of his regular sexual partners.” We agree with the TRA panel’s analysis and as such conclude that the DBS did not make any mistake of fact in concluding that the Appellant had stated that he had engaged in sexual activity with one or more children or used words to that effect.

For the avoidance of doubt, and in the same way as the TRA panel, we make no finding to the effect that the Appellant did in fact engage in sexual activity with one or more children. The most we can say on the balance of probabilities is that he said he had.