England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Luck v Secretary of State [2003] EWCST 148(PC) (11 July 2003)

MARGARET ANN LUCK v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH
2003. 148: PC Friday 11th July 2003

Carolyn Singleton (Chair)
Marilyn Adolphe
James Black

DECISION

1. Margaret Ann luck (the Appellant) appeals under section 4(3) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 against the decision of the Secretary of State for Health (the Respondent) to include her in the list kept by the Respondent under Section 1 of that Act as being unsuitable to work with children. The letter informing her of the decision was dated the 23rd December 2002.

2. The Appellant requested the Tribunal, pursuant to Regulation 7(1) of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards -Tribunal Regulations 2002 to determine her appeal without an oral hearing. Accordingly the case was dealt with on the basis of the papers submitted to the Tribunal by the parties, all of which were carefully read by the Tribunal. No oral evidence was taken.

3. Ms. Luck was included in the section 1 list following her conviction at Southampton Crown Court on 17th July 2002 of one count of doing an act of cruelty to a child or young person under 16 years and three counts of willfully assaulting/ ill-treating/ neglecting a child or young person. Ms. Luck was sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

4. The basis of Ms. Luck's appeal is that the offences of which she has been convicted related to the period between 1974 and 1981. Furthermore she has always denied and continues to deny those offences. She also states that she worked for 19 years following the period in question, continuing as matron of Seagarth Lane Children's Home and then, after re-training, in a family centre. During that 19 year period no complaints were made against her.

5. On 30th May2003 His Honour Judge David Pearl gave directions as to the obtaining of evidence of the retraining programme undertaken by Ms. Luck in 1989 and of confirmation that no queries or complaints have been made against Ms. Luck since 1989 other than the allegations which ultimately led to her conviction. Those directions state that the Respondent should send any information relating to these two matters to the Care Standards Tribunal. If the Respondent is unable to provide the information requested then that should be communicated to the CST for further directions to be given. By a letter dated the 2nd June 2003 the Respondent indicated that the information requested was not available. However it does not appear from the papers that the case was ever put before His Honour Judge Pearl for further directions. Nonetheless the Tribunal accepted entirely Ms. Luck's statement that she was re-trained and re-deployed and that no further allegations were made against her.

6. Section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 deals with appeals against inclusion in the list. Section 4(4) states "Where an individual has been convicted of an offence involving misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm, no finding of fact on which the conviction must be taken to have been based shall be challenged on an appeal or determination under this section." Therefore the fact that Ms. Luck continues to deny having committed the offences of which she was convicted was not an issue that could be considered by the Tribunal. It could not go behind the convictions.

7. Section 4(3) of the Protection of Children Act sets out the Tribunal's powers. This states:-
"If on an appeal or determination under this section the Tribunal is not satisfied of either of the following, namely -

(a) that the individual was guilty of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his duties) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm; and

(b) that the individual is unsuitable to work with children, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or determine the issue in the individual's favour and (in either case) direct his removal from the list; otherwise it shall dismiss the appeal or direct the individual's inclusion in the list.

8. Clearly in Ms. Luck's case the Tribunal accepted that section 4(3)(a) was satisfied given the fact that she had been convicted of offences. It, therefore, restricted its deliberations to section 4(3)(b) and considered whether Ms. Luck is unsuitable to work with children.

9. The tribunal had the benefit of the sentencing remarks made by His Honour Judge Boggis, the presiding judge at Ms. Luck's trial. These appeared at documents 133 to 136 of the papers and were transcribed from the official court tape recording. In relation to Melissa Orchard and Julia Hartland, referred to as the Latimer twins, the judge states " my findings- and I am sure of these - are that you beat them with a belt, you kicked them, you put their heads into buckets of cold water, you had their food spoilt with salt and you even tied them up- not all the time but regularly." The tribunal noted that these twins were aged less than three years when Ms. Luck was given responsibility for their care. So far as Steve Collins is concerned, he was aged only 5 or 6 years. The judge's findings are that Ms. Luck dealt with him by "locking him in a cupboard, putting soap in his mouth, forcing him to eat food which he did not like by serving him the same uneaten food on successive mealtimes until it was eaten". The judge was also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that on one occasion Ms. Luck turned Steve Collins outside naked in the snow.

10. The Tribunal accepted that these offences were committed a considerable time ago. However they looked at the context in which they were committed. The children involved were young and vulnerable and lived in circumstances where Ms. Luck had been entrusted with their care as matron of a local authority children's home.

11. Although the Tribunal accepted Ms. Luck's statement that she had had a blemish-free record since the date of these offences, it considered that the nature of the findings made are of such a degree that they go to the essence of Ms. Luck's character. On a balance of probability the Tribunal was satisfied that Ms. Luck is unsuitable to work with children. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

12. The decision of the Tribunal is unanimous.

CA Singleton (Chair)