England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Osliffe v Secretary of State [2005] EWCST 550(PT) (30 November 2005)

CATHERINE OSLIFFE

-v-

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (2005) 550 PT

Before:

Miss H Clarke (Chairman)

Mr M Jobbins

Ms Michele Tynan

Sitting at the VAT and Duty Tribunal, Manchester, on November 17^th 2005.

THE APPEAL

1. Catherine Osliffe (the Appellant) appeals under the Protection of Children Act 1999, Section 9, against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Skills (the Respondent) to include the Appellant on the list of people determined by the Respondent to be unsuitable for employment to work under Section 142 of the Education Act 2002 on the grounds of the Appellant's misconduct.
2. Both parties agreed in writing that the matter could be dealt with as a paper hearing and the Tribunal has proceeded on that basis.
3. The Respondent issued a direction on the 24^th August 2005 pursuant to Section 142 of the Education Act 2002 directing that the Appellant may not be appointed to undertake the following work:

(a) Providing education at a school.

(b) Providing education at a further education institution.

(c) Providing education under a contract of employment or for services where the other party of the contract is a local education authority or a person exercising a function relating to the provision of education on behalf of the local education authority.

(d) Taking part in the management of an independent school.

(e) Work which brings a person regularly into contact with children and is carried out at the request of, or with the consent of, a local education authority, a person exercising a function relating to the provision of education on behalf of a local education authority, a school or a further education institute (whether or not under contract).

4. The Appellant has a right of appeal against the decision by the Respondent under the Protection of Children Act 1999, Section 9.
5. The Appellant when completing the appeal application Form A, Section 6, elected option 3 which indicated that the Appellant was appealing against a decision by the Secretary of State not to revoke or vary an existing prohibition or restriction (Section 142 (6) of the Education Act 2002) rather than the section 6 option 1, which is an appeal against the Director and by the Secretary of State to prohibit or restrict the Appellant from teaching or working with children (Section 142 of the Education Act 2002).
6. The Tribunal has nevertheless dealt with this matter as though option 1 had been selected, as it is clear from the correspondence and the other papers submitted by the Appellant that it was her intention to appeal against the direction issued by the Respondent on August 24^th 2005 .
7. The Appellant is currently in prison serving a five year jail sentence having been found guilty of the manslaughter of her husband on February 1^st 2005. The Appellant indicated in her appeal application that she was hoping to appeal against her conviction for manslaughter but there is no indication in the papers before the Tribunal either that the application for an appeal has been lodged or the outcome of any appeal.
8. The Appellant in her appeal application recognised that she had been convicted of a very serious offence and that this offence was unlikely to be ignored. "Due to the fact that I have been found guilty of the crime of manslaughter you have made your decision to exclude me from teaching. I am hoping to run an appeal against my conviction, this in itself may not be grounds for an appeal against your decision, but I am asking you to reconsider your decision excluding me from teaching on the grounds that I have lost everything else in my life and sentenced to prison, yet still maintain my innocence.

If the above is impossible, if I do win my appeal and my conviction is quashed would you be able to withdraw your direction."

9. Whilst noting that the Appellant is proposing to make an appeal application in respect of her conviction for manslaughter the Tribunal must address the facts as they exist at the date of this hearing and it cannot speculate on the likelihood of any appeal by the Appellant against the manslaughter conviction being successful.

DECISION

10. The conviction for manslaughter of the Appellant's husband is such a grave offence that the Respondent's decision to place the Appellant on the list must be upheld. The public have a right to expect that anyone involved with the teaching of children or young persons should have the highest standards of integrity and trust and a conviction for such a serious offence cannot be ignored.
11. If the Appellant's appeal is successful it will be open for her to request a review of the direction to include her on the list, as acknowledged by the Respondent in a letter to the Appellant and in the Respondent's written response to the appeal where at paragraph 6 the Respondent states "The Secretary of State has also made it clear to the Appellant that the Secretary of State would be willing to review her decision if the Appellant were successful in her appeal against conviction."
12. It is therefore the unanimous decision of this Tribunal that the appeal should be dismissed.

Dated November 30th 2005

Miss H Clarke (Chairman)

Mr M Jobbins

Ms Michele Tynan