Secretary of State for Children, Schools & Families v BP

When assessing suitability to work with vulnerable adults, a tribunal must consider that issue separately from suitability to work with children. The absence of evidence that the person presents a direct risk to vulnerable adults does not resolve the question. The tribunal may properly consider public confidence, including the concerns of ordinary sensible people, provided it does not merely yield to unreasoned public reaction.

A tribunal must give adequate reasons showing that it has addressed the material issues and explained an apparently difficult conclusion. Where its reasoning fails to engage with public confidence and its own relevant jurisprudence, the decision may disclose an error of law. The appropriate remedy is ordinarily reconsideration by the tribunal on the existing factual findings, together with any further evidence it considers appropriate.

The Secretary of State appealed against a decision of the Care Standards Tribunal dated 24 July 2008. The Tribunal directed that BP should remain on the Protection of Children Act list but removed his name from the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list.

BP had been convicted of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. The Tribunal found that he was unsuitable to work with children, but concluded that his interest was directed solely towards children and that he was not unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. The Secretary of State challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons and its application of the law, particularly its failure to address public confidence.

1. Appeal allowed. The issue of BP’s inclusion on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. There was no order as to costs.

2. An appeal from the Tribunal lay only on a point of law. The High Court therefore could not revisit secure findings of fact. However, the Tribunal’s conclusion concerning vulnerable adults had to be supported by adequate reasons.

3. The Tribunal was right that suitability to work with vulnerable adults had to be considered separately. It was not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a person unsuitable to work with children was also unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. Each case depended on its facts and context.

4. The Tribunal’s established jurisprudence correctly treated public confidence as an important consideration in assessing suitability. This did not permit reliance on unreasoned public hostility, but allowed regard to matters likely to concern ordinary sensible people.

5. The Tribunal had failed to address public confidence adequately. Its reasoning focused on the fact that BP’s unhealthy interest was directed towards children and did not explain why, despite the findings supporting his continued inclusion on the Protection of Children Act list and the Tribunal’s own jurisprudence, he remained suitable to work with vulnerable adults. The deficiency was sufficiently serious to justify the inference that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law.

6. Reconsideration was required on the existing factual findings concerning the Protection of Children Act listing, with such additional evidence concerning suitability to work with vulnerable adults as the Tribunal considered appropriate.

• Care Standards Tribunal: on 24 July 2008, directed that BP remain on the Protection of Children Act list but that his name be removed from the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and remitted the question of BP’s Protection of Vulnerable Adults listing to the Tribunal for reconsideration.