Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

EMPLOYMENT/VULNERABLE ADULTS: Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v BP [2009] EWHC 866 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : secretary-of-state-for-children-schools-and-families-v-bp-2009-ewhc-866-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 7, 2009, 07:20 AM
Article ID : 88669

(Family Division; Munby J; 28 April 2009)

Following a trial at which the man pleaded guilty to offences of making indecent photos of children, the Secretary of State confirmed the man's inclusion on both the Protection of Children Act list (PoCA) and the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list (PoVA). The man appealed to the Care Standards Tribunal, which heard evidence not only of his guilty plea, but also of between 70 and 223 indecent images of children found on his computer, and a very large number of images of children in gymnastic wear or swimwear. Also the man had subscribed to a newsgroup whose articles were concerned with indecent images of children. The Tribunal considered that the man was unsuitable to work with children, and that his name should remain on the PoCA list. However, the Tribunal considered that the man was not a risk to vulnerable adults or unsuitable to work with them, and that, given his qualities as a successful and inspirational organiser, his name should be removed from the PoVA list. The Secretary of State appealed on the basis that the Tribunal had given insufficient reasons, in particular failing to explain why it felt that there would be public confidence in the man.

The Tribunal seemed not to have addressed what, on the jurisprudence, was always going to be a key and very possibly, though not inevitably, a decisive issue: the question of public confidence. Given the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and the importance the Tribunal had always and appropriately attached to the question of public confidence, and the fact that the man should remain on the PoCA list, it had not given its reasons for deciding that he nonetheless did not need to remain on the PoVA list. The question of his listing must be re-determined by the Tribunal.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from