Preventing a Barring Decision for a Retired Chemistry Teacher Facing DBS Action in Sale

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 represented a retired chemistry teacher in Sale, who faced possible inclusion on the Children’s Barred List following concerns about professional boundaries, physical contact with students and social media use.

Our client had taught for more than 30 years. He accepted that some aspects of his conduct had fallen below the professional standards expected of a teacher, but he denied any sexual motivation or intention to harm students and disputed a number of the more serious allegations made against him.

We prepared detailed representations examining the underlying college investigation, separating admitted boundary mistakes from disputed allegations, and addressing whether the evidence demonstrated any present or future safeguarding risk. Following consideration of those representations, the DBS took no further action.

The background

The concerns arose during our client’s employment at a further education college. Allegations included that he had stood too close to students, touched pupils on the shoulders, used the word “beautiful” when speaking to students, and viewed and briefly liked a student’s Instagram photograph.

Our client did not accept every allegation. He acknowledged that some interactions had involved poor professional boundaries and reflected on how his conduct could have made students uncomfortable. However, he denied any sexual or predatory motivation, disputed allegations that he had stroked students on the back, and challenged aspects of the college investigation.

The distinction mattered. The case was not advanced on the basis that every criticism was unfounded. Instead, the representations accepted what could properly be accepted while challenging interpretations and allegations that went further than the available evidence justified.

What we did

Our representations were built around the primary evidence rather than a bare denial. In particular, we:

• analysed the college investigation and identified allegations that had not been properly tested, reliance on hearsay, and gaps in the questioning of relevant witnesses;
• examined the student evidence and highlighted material that did not support the more serious interpretation of events;
• challenged assumptions surrounding Instagram, including the proposition that viewing the student’s profile necessarily showed deliberate searching;
• separated admitted professional-boundary mistakes from disputed allegations of sexual or predatory behaviour;
• prepared evidence of insight and remediation, including a detailed reflective statement and updated safeguarding guidance; and
• placed the concerns in the context of a professional career lasting more than 30 years, supported by character references and positive messages from former students, with no other DBS or Teaching Regulation Agency concerns.

Why the quality of the underlying evidence mattered

A DBS barring decision can have long-term consequences. It was therefore important to examine whether the more serious characterisation of our client’s conduct was actually supported by the evidence.

The college material included allegations that had not been fully tested, uncorroborated accounts and evidential gaps. We also identified student evidence that did not support an inference of sexual or predatory intent.

The Instagram allegation was considered in the same way. Our client accepted that opening and briefly liking the photograph was a mistake, but we challenged the assumption that the appearance of the student’s profile demonstrated that he had deliberately searched for her. Information concerning suggested accounts provided a plausible alternative explanation.

This allowed the representations to distinguish between conduct that genuinely called for reflection and allegations or interpretations that were not sufficiently supported by the underlying evidence.

Future risk, insight and retirement

The central issue was not simply whether our client had made professional-boundary mistakes in the past. The DBS also had to consider whether the evidence showed a future safeguarding risk that made barring necessary and proportionate.

Our client had retired from teaching and stated that he did not intend to return to teaching, volunteering or other regulated activity requiring a DBS check. Retirement did not determine the case by itself, but it was relevant when considered alongside his long professional history, clear police record, reflection on the concerns and the absence of evidence of sexual or predatory motivation.

We also relied on his insight into why professional boundaries matter and how apparently well-intentioned conduct can nevertheless make a student uncomfortable or create safeguarding concerns.

Taken together, those factors supported the argument that the conduct was unlikely to be repeated and that inclusion on the Children’s Barred List was not necessary.

The outcome: DBS took no further action

Following consideration of the representations and supporting evidence, the DBS took no further action.

Our client was not placed on the Children’s Barred List.

For a teacher who had spent more than three decades in education, the decision avoided the serious and enduring consequences of a barring decision. It also illustrates why a minded-to-bar letter should not be treated as a foregone conclusion.

What this case shows

DBS representations may need to do considerably more than rely on a person’s previous good character. Where some conduct is admitted and other allegations are disputed, the strongest approach can be to analyse the evidence allegation by allegation, accept genuine failings, challenge unsupported characterisations and then address what the evidence means for future safeguarding risk.

In this case, the long professional history was important, but it was only one part of the picture. The representations also tested the quality of the investigation, examined the social-media evidence, demonstrated insight and explained why the admitted boundary mistakes did not justify the more serious conclusion that our client presented an ongoing sexual or predatory risk to children.

Comment from Jared McNally

“This case required a careful distinction between genuine professional-boundary mistakes and allegations that went further than the evidence justified. Our client accepted the conduct that should have been handled differently, but we also tested the underlying investigation and challenged assumptions that were not properly supported. The key question was what safeguarding risk he presented going forward. The DBS ultimately took no further action.”

Jared McNally, Solicitor, Clifford Johnston & Co

Specialist DBS barring solicitors

Clifford Johnston & Co represents teachers and other professionals facing DBS barring proceedings, including responses to minded-to-bar and intended-to-bar letters.

We can analyse the evidence relied upon by the DBS, identify factual or evidential weaknesses, prepare detailed representations and address issues including professional boundaries, insight, remediation, future risk and proportionality.

If you have received a DBS minded-to-bar letter and your career or ability to undertake regulated activity is at risk, contact our specialist DBS solicitors for advice.