Historic Genocide Allegations Resolved with No Further Action from DBS for Eastbourne Client

OUTCOME: The Disclosure and Barring Service took no further action and did not place our client on the Children’s Barred List.

Clifford Johnston & Co successfully represented a client in Eastbourne, who received a DBS minded-to-bar letter following exceptionally serious historic allegations connected to the civil war in Sierra Leone.

Our client was accused of genocide and of having been involved with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). He denied the allegations and maintained that he had never been a member of the RUF.

Significantly, the DBS had considered the same underlying material in 2015 and had decided not to bar him. More than a decade later, he was referred again despite there having been no new misconduct or safeguarding concerns.

We prepared detailed representations challenging both the allegations themselves and whether the evidence demonstrated any current or future safeguarding risk to children. Following consideration of those representations, the DBS took no further action.

Why was our client facing a DBS barring decision?

The DBS issued a minded-to-bar letter based on allegations that, between 1997 and 2001, our client had been involved with the RUF and had participated in or witnessed serious violence, including murder, against civilians during the conflict in Sierra Leone.

Our client firmly rejected the allegations. He explained that he had arrived in the UK as a young refugee from Sierra Leone, having himself been a victim of the conflict and human trafficking. When he first came to the UK, he had stated that he had been a member of the RUF. Those admissions became a significant part of the material later relied upon against him. However, his case was that the account was untrue and had only been given because he was frightened and had been instructed by the person who trafficked him to the UK to provide that version of events. He maintained that he had never been a member of the RUF. The allegations were therefore not only historic but strongly disputed, and the reliability and context of his earlier admissions were central to the case.

The DBS had considered the same allegations before

A central part of our representations concerned the DBS’s own previous consideration of the case. In 2015, the DBS had considered the same underlying Home Office material and had decided not to place our client on the Children’s Barred List.

The later referral did not arise because of fresh misconduct, a new allegation or a further safeguarding incident. A significant period had simply passed since the earlier referral.

We argued that this was highly relevant. If the same underlying allegations had previously been considered without barring, and nothing adverse had occurred during the many years that followed, there needed to be a proper evidential basis for reaching a different assessment of risk.

Police had already investigated and taken no further action

The allegations had also been investigated by the police in 2015 following a request from the Home Office. The police took no further action.

Our client had no criminal convictions arising from the allegations and there had been no subsequent comparable conduct. He had instead established a long and stable working life in the UK. No concerns had been raised about his professionalism, conduct or suitability to work with members of the public.

This subsequent history was important when considering whether allegations concerning events many years earlier demonstrated a present safeguarding risk.

Why current and future risk mattered

The seriousness of an allegation is important, but seriousness alone does not determine whether somebody should be placed on a DBS barred list. The central issue in this case was whether the evidence established a future safeguarding risk that made barring appropriate and proportionate.

In our client’s case:

• the allegations concerned events said to have taken place decades earlier;
• our client denied the allegations;
• the police had investigated and taken no further action;
• the DBS had previously considered the underlying material without imposing a bar;
• there had been no fresh misconduct or safeguarding concerns; and
• our client’s subsequent history did not demonstrate a risk to children.

We submitted  that the evidence did not establish a current or future safeguarding risk that justified inclusion on the Children’s Barred List and that barring would therefore be inappropriate and disproportionate.

Outcome: DBS took no further action

Following consideration of our representations, the Disclosure and Barring Service took no further action. Our client was not placed on the Children’s Barred List.

The decision meant that he avoided a barring decision arising from allegations concerning events said to have occurred many years earlier and was not prohibited from undertaking regulated activity with children.

The case illustrates an important point for anyone who receives a DBS minded-to-bar letter: a minded-to-bar letter is not a final barring decision. It provides an opportunity to make representations addressing the evidence, the context of the allegations and the question of current or future safeguarding risk.

Where allegations are disputed, historic or unsupported by later conduct, carefully prepared representations can be decisive.

Comment from Jared McNally

“The allegations in this case were exceptionally serious, but seriousness alone did not answer the question the DBS had to decide.

“Our client denied the allegations. The same underlying material had previously been considered without barring, the police had taken no further action and there had been no new safeguarding concerns in the years that followed.

“The crucial issue was whether the evidence demonstrated a current or future risk to children. We argued that it did not, and the DBS ultimately took no further action.”

Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co

Specialist DBS barring advice

Clifford Johnston & Co represents professionals and other individuals facing DBS minded-to-bar proceedings and challenges to barring decisions. If you have received a minded-to-bar letter, we can advise on the evidence and prepare detailed representations addressing whether barring is appropriate and proportionate.

If you have received a DBS minded-to-bar letter, speak to our specialist DBS solicitors about your case.