[2025] UKUT 119 (AAC)

The appellant was referred to DBS by the school at which he was formerly working as an Advanced Teaching Assistant. DBS sent the appellant a Minded to Bar Letter on 8 January 2023. The appellant, then represented by a solicitor, sent representations in response to that letter, enclosing with the representations a number of references from family members and friends.

DBS made a final decision dated 21 March 2023. In accordance with DBS’s normal practice, DBS completed a Barring Decision Process (“BDP”) document before preparing the final decision letter. The BDP sets out DBS’s reasoning more fully than the final decision letter.

The evidence that DBS had before it at the time of making the final decision included the evidence supplied by the appellant and the evidence supplied by his former employer and also information from the relevant Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

In summary, DBS found that the appellant attempted to pay for illegal material, that he “went to great lengths to access the ‘dark web’”, that he attempted to purchase a file on a dark web pornographic website that stated that everyone featured on the website was over the age of 18, but did not succeed in paying. DBS found that the appellant then visited a different pornographic website, assuming that all websites did not contain images of anybody under the age of 18, and downloaded a zip folder for free.

DBS noted the appellant’s admissions that he was addicted to pornography, and that he masturbated while viewing indecent images of a child/children, but also recorded that he said he was masturbating to ‘the sexual act’ and not in response to the child/children. DBS noted that he said he did not realise they were indecent images until after he had masturbated. DBS noted that he viewed the images a second time a few days later to check whether what he had seen “was real”. DBS concluded that the appellant must have known at the time that the images to which he masturbated involved children. DBS noted, though, that the appellant said he was disgusted by what he had seen, and informed a friend and also his mother.

DBS further noted that the appellant has “an interest in Anime” (Japanese animated films) and that he accepts he has pictures of Anime characters on his computer about which he said, “all characters are fictional and over the age of 18 irrespective of appearance”. DBS took into account that he felt the animated characters looked like adults and that he considered his interest in Anime had been misrepresented as evidence of a sexual interest in children. DBS also took into account that “you, your solicitor and members of your family have said that you would not engage in viewing indecent images of children again”. However, DBS concluded that he did have a sexual interest in children and that this gave rise to risk to children emotionally and physically should he work in regulated activity in the future.

DBS found that the appellant had taken steps to address his behaviour by admitting his addiction and completing the Safer Lives programme, finding new hobbies, implementing controls on his computer use and access. DBS found that there was no evidence of the appellant having engaged in any inappropriate behaviour with any pupils in the schools where had worked.

DBS considered the appellant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). DBS took into account the appellant’s diagnosis of ASD. DBS acknowledged that barring would prevent him from pursuing his chosen career in education and any other employment and work with children in regulated activity settings, that this would reduce his earnings potential and affect his lifestyle and dependents, as well as adversely effecting his mental health. However, DBS considered that there was no less intrusive way of safeguarding children and that it was appropriate and proportionate to include him in the children’s barred list.