Care Standards Tribunal, 2011-04-07 (ID v SOS)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Registration Number | 2009/1733/PT |
| Date | 07 April 2011 |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2011] UKFTT 202 (HESC)
DECISION
Case No: [2009] 1733.PT
THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CARE STANDARDS)
BETWEEN
ID
Appellant
-AND-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CHILDREN SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES.
Respondent
Before: Tony Askham (Tribunal Judge)
Susan Last
Raymond Winn
Dates
18 and 19th August 2010 and decision consideration 28th March 2011.
Decision
Appeal
ID appeals under Section 144 of the Care Standards Act 2002 against the Respondents’ direction contained in a letter dated 30th September 2009 to bar the appellant from employment to which Section 142 of the Act applies.
Attendance
For the Appellant
Mr Bentote (helper and witness)
The Appellant
For the Respondent
Paul Ozin (Barrister)
Instructed by Sarah Townsend (Solicitor)
Witnesses:
John Shields (18.08.10)
Preliminary matters
-
After the hearing on the 18 and 19 August 2010 we adjourned our decision to seek further documentary evidence from both parties as to certain of the main allegations against the appellant. As a result we have now produced to us by the appellant documents relating to the appellant’s divorce and custody and access hearing in the Bristol County Court in 1995 and 1996 and by the respondent the indictment of the appellant in the Portsmouth Crown Court on four charges of indecent assault dated the 14 September 2000.
-
In addition the respondent has shown us that all the records relating to the Bristol prosecution are certain to have been destroyed and similarly all papers as to the Portsmouth prosecution have also been destroyed. It appears possible that there may still be papers in the Bristol County Court relating to the divorce proceedings but at this time these are not available to us.
-
In the circumstances we have decided we must now make a decision on the basis of the evidence now available to us.
-
In addition we have received the further final written submissions of both parties.
The Issues
-
The Appellant, who was employed as a math’s teacher at Bay House School and was referred by it on the 19th October 2007 to the Independent Safeguarding Authority as a result of its investigations following it finding out that the appellant, had been arrested for alleged child abduction.
-
The Respondent maintained that the Appellant had been the subject of a number of serious allegations involving serious misconduct with children and as a result is unsuitable to work with children.
-
The Appellant maintained in his Notice of Appeal, that he had been found not guilty on two occasions of alleged indecent assault on children. That he had never committed any act of indecency with children and that the allegations against him were untrue or exaggerated. Although he no longer intended ever again to work with children he stated that his name should not be placed on list 99.
The evidence
The Respondent’s evidence
-
Counsel for the Secretary of state took us carefully through the skeleton argument he had prepared and which set out each of the allegations made against ID and on which the Secretary of State relied in arriving at his decision to place ID on list 99. These allegations relate to two separate types of misconduct the first and most serious allegations A1 – A4 which relate to separate allegations of indecent assault on children and A5-A7 which relate to school related issues.
-
These matters and key dates were presented to us by the Respondent as follows:
|
Event |
Comment |
|
Indecent assault recorded in police notes from Avon & Somerset Police [10b]. |
|
|
[A1] Indecent assault on 11 year old female neighbour [JH] allegation (Bristol); prosecuted and acquitted. Applicant claimed at the Bay House School meeting 15/5/07 [10i] that this complainant colluded with the 2 complainants in [A2] and that the case was withdrawn when one of the girls made a statement saying the allegations were untrue. He said that the allegation was of looking at the child inappropriately which was classified as indecent assault. In the Applicant’s representations to the Respondent [15], he said that the evidence of the mother and brother discredited the prosecution case and that a letter from [LJ] (see [A2]) indicated that she had lied to cover for [JL]. Police CPT referral log [10m] records that following decision of mother of complainants in [A2] not to allow them to give evidence, case proceeded with evidence of JH alone and Applicant was acquitted. Enquiries of CPS [10b] indicate that proceedings for indecent assault would not have been brought merely for looking at a child inappropriately. The true facts are not known. |
First young female complaining of sexual abuse (not counting 10/11/96 incident). Applicant’s assertion on 15/5/07 as to nature of allegation inaccurate. Applicant’s assertion on 15/5/07 as to the circumstances of acquittal inaccurate. |
|
[A2] Indecent assault on 13 year old girl [CJ] and 14 year old girl [LJ]; charged but withdrawn A substantial quantity of material from the Avon & Somerset Constabulary [10m] shows:
|
Second and third young female complaining of sexual abuse. Applicant does allege collusion with [A1] complainant. Applicant’s assertion on 15/5/07 as to the circumstances of withdrawal of charge inaccurate.
|
|
[A3] Indecent assault on 4 year old daughter allegation; investigated but no action taken. Applicant claimed at the Bay House School meeting 15/5/07 [10i] that this was a malicious allegation by his ex partner following his refusal to give consent to her taking their son on holiday. In the Applicant’s representations to the Respondent [15], he says that his ex partner got news of the criminal proceedings and “for reasons beyond my understanding, she alleged I was abusing [daughter] too”. |
Fourth young female complaining of sexual abuse. Applicant does not allege collusion but alleges ex partner aware of other allegations.
|
|
Applicant joins Mayfield School as a Maths teacher [11]. |
|
|
[A4] Indecent assault on 7 year old female (Portsmouth); prosecuted and acquitted. Applicant claimed at the Bay House School meeting 15/5/07 [10i] that this related to the daughter of an ex girlfriend.(JH) Hampshire Police summary [10j] sets out facts of allegation which amount to allegation, both via mother and directly by child in the course of a police interview, of multiple instances of digital penetration. Applicant in interview denied allegations. In the Applicant’s representations to the Respondent [15], he says that there was no supporting forensic evidence... |
To continue reading
Request your trial