England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

 


Del Mundo v Secretary of State [2005] EWCST 557(PVA) (March 13 2006)

CARE STANDARDS TRIBUNAL DECISION

Nelson Del Mundo (Appellant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Health (Respondent)

(2005) 557.PVA

(2005) 558 PC

Before:

Miss H Clarke, (Nominated Chairman)

Mr M Flynn

Mrs C Wiggin

Heard on February 22^nd and 23^rd 2006 at Lewtrenchard Manor, Lewdown, Okehampton EX20 4PN

For the Appellant : Miss C Mashembo of Counsel instructed by Coodes, solicitors

For the Respondent : Mr A Sharland of Counsel instructed by Treasury Solicitor

DECISION

1. The Appellant appeals against the two decisions of the Respondent contained in a letter to the Appellant dated July 7^th 2005 ( the Decision Letter ); firstly ( the First Appeal) to confirm him on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List (the POVA List) and secondly ( the Second Appeal) to confirm him on the Protection of Children Act List (the POCA List).
2. The Decision Letter also notified the Appellant that the effect of inclusion on the POCA list also meant that the Appellant would not be able to carry out work to which S142 of the Education Act 2002 applies and that his name had been added to the Education Act List.
3. A Restricted Reporting Order was made by the Tribunal under Regulation18 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) on the first day of the hearing which will continue at the conclusion of the hearing until the decision is promulgated.

A Direction was made by the President of the Care Standards Tribunal, His Honour Judge David Pearl, (The President) on 21^st November 2005 restricting the reporting of the name of the resident at the centre of this case and directing that reference to him will be by the initial 'R' so as to protect his private life.

4. The Tribunal heard evidence on behalf of the Respondent from Ms Catherine Susan Aller (Ms Aller) R's partner, Joy Louise Thorpe (Ms Thorpe) a registered general nurse who works at Kernow House Care Centre, Launceston (Kernow House), Dennis Henry Wing (Mr Wing), a senior care worker at Kernow House and Frederick George Pooley (Mr Pooley), a registered mental health and general nurse who worked at Kernow House, until October 2005.

The Appellant gave evidence but called no witnesses.

5. In addition to the Tribunal bundle of papers, which was prepared in advance of the hearing, the following additional documentation was considered by the Tribunal.

(i) Two Polaroid photographs showing R's groin area taken on May 22^nd 2004.

(ii) A police video of an interview with R on May 28^th 2004 ( the Police Video)

(iii) A copy of the training record of the Appellant whilst employed at Kernow House

(iv) A copy of the certificate dated April 21st 2004 awarded to the Appellant for completion of a multi media based customer care course at Kernow House.

6. The First Appeal (the POVA Appeal) is brought under S 86 (3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (CSA 2000) which 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 duty) which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult; and

(b) that the individual is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults,

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."

7. The second Appeal (the POCA Appeal) is brought under S4(3)of the Protection of Children Act 1999 ( POCA 1999), which is in similar terms to the CSA 2000 S86(3) except that unsuitability to work with vulnerable adults is replaced under the terms of S4(3) of POCA 1999 with unsuitability to work with children.
8. In both the appeals the burden of proof rests on the Respondent . The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely on the balance of probabilities as defined in Re H [1996] AC 563

The written statements, correspondence and other documents filed by both parties with the Care Standards Tribunal prior to the hearing have been collated into one paginated bundle (the Tribunal Bundle).

9. Background Information

The Appellant is originally from the Philippines and arrived in the UK on April 19^th 2004 having obtained a job with Westminster Care Homes, the then owners of Kernow House, through an agency in the Philippines. The Appellant immediately started work at Kernow House as a senior carer.

The Appellant in his witness statement and in his evidence to the Tribunal confirmed that he had a BSc in nursing which he obtained in 1993 and that he had worked as a nurse attendant for a period of over five years in a home for the elderly in Singapore.

The day after arriving in the UK the Appellant had a two day multi media based customer care course and then began working at Kernow House. The Appellant received the theory part and a limited part of the practical aspects of his moving and handling training from Mr Ken Williams ( Mr Williams ) on April 26^th 2004 .During this initial period the Appellant was on duty during the day and on May 4^th 2004 he received further training from Mr Pooley immediately prior to commencing night duty.

In the early hours of May 22^nd 2004 the Appellant was involved in an incident relating to the movement of the resident known as R who had fallen in his en suite toilet and was unable to move himself back into his wheelchair because of the nature of his disabilities.

There was no report of any fall logged in the accident book at Kernow House or any record of the fall in R's notes.

The Appellant initially denied that R had fallen but subsequently admitted that R had fallen and that he and another carer Reynita Arenas ( Ms Arenas) had manoeuvred R by holding his underpants, which he now accepted was not an appropriate way to move R.

10. R did not make a formal complaint at the time of the incident but he did disclose what had happened to his partner, Ms Aller, during a home visit later that day and she telephoned Kernow House and informed Ms Thorpe of what she had been told by R.

On his return to Kernow House R was examined by Mr Wing, Ms P Smith and Ms Thorpe and Polaroid photographs were taken of R's groin area.

11. Ms Aller attended a meeting at Kernow House on Tuesday May 25^th 2004 and later that day a GP was called to examine R but he could find no evidence of any physical injuries to R's groin or scrotum.

R was interviewed by the police on May 28th 2004 and a police video of the interview ( the police video was played to the Tribunal).The Appellant was interviewed on June 4^th 2004 ( the first police interview ) and again on July 29^th 2004 ( the second police interview ) and subsequently the Appellant accepted a Caution by the Cornwall police on July 29 th 2004 for assaulting R contrary to S39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

12. The Appellant was suspended from duty following the incident on May 22^nd 2004 and following further internal disciplinary investigations the Appellant was notified on the 15^th July 2004 that he was being dismissed for gross misconduct arising out of the incorrect moving and handling of R. The Appellant did not exercise any form of appeal in relation to the dismissal.

Westminster Health Care in a letter dated September 3^rd 2004 informed the Respondent of what had taken place and as a result of the information and further investigation the Appellant was subsequently placed on the POVA and POCA lists.

13. Evidence

Ms Aller in her evidence to the Tribunal claimed that when R came to visit her on May 22^nd she had helped him to the toilet and had noticed that his testicles were swollen. When asked by the Tribunal Ms Aller stated that there was no redness around R's groin area. Ms Aller said that R was distressed but on cross examination by Counsel and questioning by the Tribunal she accepted that the distress was because R had recognised that he was becoming more vulnerable because of the progression of his illness .

Ms Aller in her witness statement claimed that R had stated to her that "he had been dragged across the floor and picked up by his underpants that morning by a big chap who had held him down."

Under cross examination as to whether or not R had actually claimed that he had been dragged across the floor (as this was not mentioned in the transcript of the police interview with R),Ms Aller said that she couldn't remember what R had said to the police although she had been present at the time.Ms Aller was also specifically asked whether R had told her that two other people were present during the incident when he fell and she, after some deliberation, said that she thought he had not told her this.

14. Ms Thorpe in her evidence described how when she had examined R on his return to Kernow House on May 22 nd 2004 she had seen a long graze on R's scrotum and she refuted the suggestion that this might have been caused by R scratching himself.
15. Ms Thorpe described how she had worked with the Appellant on the day shift before he went on to the night shift rota and specifically described an occasion when R had fallen and the Appellant had been present when he had been moved correctly by other members of staff. Ms Thorpe stated that she had told him not to assist at that stage as he hadn't completed the moving and handling training but that he should stand back and watch the procedure .

Miss Thorpe claimed that on that occasion R had been moved by sitting him on two slide sheets and that the Appellant had seen this procedure.

16. Mr Wing in his evidence to the Tribunal confirmed that the photographs presented to the Tribunal did relate to R's groin area. Mr Wing stated that when he examined R on his return to Kernow House on May 22 nd 2004 his groin was sore and painful and that there was a long vertical line deep into his groin which was bleeding. Mr Wing confirmed that R's groin was often red as he suffered from excoriation which causes the skin to become itchy and dry and that is why creams were applied to R's skin to reduce the discomfort.

Mr Wing told the Tribunal that the care plans for each of the residents were available for all carers to read, the carers did make entries in the evaluation and progress report for each of the residents and that if a resident fell this should be recorded in the resident's report and then countersigned by the registered general nurse ( the RGN) on duty .

17. Although previously thought to be unavailable, on the second day of the Tribunal the police video became available and was played to the Tribunal, the Appellant, and the Respondent, and the Appellant's Counsel.R's illness has affected his speech and the sound quality of the interview was poor. The Tribunal Bundle contained an apparent transcript of the interview but it became clear to the Tribunal that the transcript did not reflect fully all the questions that were raised; when evaluating this evidence the Tribunal has proceeded with caution. The video did provide visual confirmation of R's physical appearance, at that time R was believed to weigh approximately 20 stone and to be approximately 5 ft 7 inches tall.
18. Mr Pooley, who no longer works for Westminster Care Homes and who was a somewhat reluctant witness, made it clear that he had not delivered all of R's training nor had he been able to review the Appellant, training record prior to delivery of the training on May 4^th 2004. He had been asked by Mr Williams, who was the trainer at Kernow House to complete the Appellant's manual handling and training session to enable the Appellant to go on night duty. Mr Pooley claimed that he taught the Appellant for approximately 2 ¼ hours but that he did not train the Appellant on how to manoeuvre someone who had fallen on the floor.

Mr Pooley was asked why the training records had not been countersigned by the Appellant and why there were no entries relating to the observations which would normally be completed. He admitted that the omissions were unusual but that all the training records had been locked in Mr Williams' office on May 4^th 2004. He admitted that he had not bothered to follow up what training had been done and he made it clear that as far as he was concerned the records were kept centrally by Mr Williams and were not his responsibility.

19. The Appellant in his evidence confirmed that he had received training from Mr Pooley but stated that it had been less than a hour and that Mr Pooley had demonstrated to the Appellant how to use a hoist, how to use slide sheets on a bed, how to turn a patient, and how to get a person out of bed.

The Appellant when describing what had happened when R had fallen stated that he had been called on May 22^nd by the RGN on duty that night, Sheila Catulong ( Ms Catulong) and that he, his co –worker Ms Arenas , and Ms Catulong had found R sitting on the foot pedal of his wheelchair in his en-suite toilet. The Appellant said there was no possibility of his moving R with a hoist because of the restricted space, he also said that nobody had told him that they should use slide sheets. He said he found himself in "a situation".

The Appellant firmly denied that he had dragged R across the floor but admitted that he had used R's underpants to manoeuvre R back into the wheelchair. The Appellant during the hearing stated that he and Ms Arenas had been on either side of R and had each taken hold of R's underpants. In response to a question from the Tribunal the Appellant said that he and Ms Arenas had each used one hand on R's underpants.

20. The Appellant when asked why he had lied in his first police interview and during the initial internal investigations at Kernow House about the incident stated that he had been frightened when he had been interviewed by the police and that he had not wanted to get his colleagues into trouble .

During his oral evidence the Appellant confirmed that he had worked as a nurse attendant in a nursing home in Singapore for a period of approximately six years and that he had been trained on how to deal with patients who had fallen.

The Tribunal specifically asked whether in any other care setting patients had been moved using clothing, the Appellant stated no but that he had used handling belts in the past. The Appellant also disclosed that he was not a registered nurse as he had failed the Board exams in the Philippines and said he was too upset to re-sit them.

21. Submissions

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that misconduct had been established by the inappropriate manoeuvring of R and the repeated lying by the Appellant. Counsel submitted that the misconduct was caused by the actual physical harm and although there were discrepancies about the type of injuries that had been sustained, R's account that it had hurt should be accepted.

Counsel for the Respondent suggested that the misconduct was also established by the consistent lying and the other incident that had been alleged, namely that the Appellant had pushed R back down onto the bed by placing his hands on his shoulders.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the issue of whether the Appellant had had sufficient training prior to going on to night duty was a "red herring" as the Appellant was not an inexperienced person. The Appellant had accepted an appointment as a senior carer. It was submitted that the Appellant had a four year BSc in nursing and had worked for six years in Singapore during which time he had received training in moving and handling. Any limitations in the training did not constitute extenuating circumstances as it was submitted that common sense dictated that it was not appropriate to move a 20 stone man by his underpants.

The Respondent's claim that the Appellant had not admitted his guilt and had sought to minimise the level of misconduct and shift the blame to R rather than accept responsibility and his lack of insight made him unsuitable to work with either vulnerable adults or children.

22. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was not claiming that his behaviour had been right and that he had accepted that the way he had handled R was wrong. It was submitted that a lack of effective training and his naivety in following others had led the Appellant to make an inappropriate decision about what to do in the circumstances in which R was found when he had slipped out of his wheelchair.

It was submitted that the Appellant should have had at least six hours manual handling training and that although his performance did fall below what was appropriate this was due to the lack of supervised training.

It was submitted that there was no evidence to confirm that the Appellant had dragged R at any stage nor was there any clear substantiated evidence to confirm the claim that the Appellant had restrained or pushed R back on to the bed .

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the physical evidence of harm was mixed with Ms Thorpe suggesting there had been grazing while Mr Wing went much further in describing damage to R's groin but that there was no medical evidence from a GP or anyone else to verify the position.

23. Findings

All the parties at the hearing accepted that to move someone weighing approximately 20 stone by their underpants was wrong. As well as the potential risk of physical harm to both handler and the person being moved there is also the question of respect and human dignity for the resident.

The Appellant submitted that his failure to move R in an appropriate manner was due to the inadequate training that he had received in the care home. It was also submitted that the Appellant was naïve and that he had been willing to follow more experienced staff on duty on May 22^nd 2005.

24. The Appellant's training record at Kernow House shows that the Appellant did not receive all the planned moving and handling training. There was clearly also a poor level of communication between Mr Pooley and Mr Williams the permanent trainer at Kernow House. Mr Pooley was asked at short notice to finish the Appellant's manual and handling training and he did so without knowledge of the training which the Appellant had already received from Mr Williams .The lack of training records led Mr Pooley to make incorrect assumptions and as a consequence the Appellant was not trained in a number of manoeuvres. He was specifically not shown how to move a resident in a confined space or to move a resident from a fallen position.

Proper staff training in moving and handling techniques is an important part of the safety programme of any care home and these omissions and the poor training records have serious implications for the standards of care, and the safety of both the staff and the residents of Kernow House.

25. The Appellant completed a BSc nursing degree in 1993 in the Philippines; it was a four year course and included practical clinical training as well as theory.

The Appellant also spent six years working as a nurse attendant in a home for the elderly in Singapore. The Appellant because of his previous experience and employment history was appointed as a senior care worker at Kernow House. The Appellant confirmed to the Tribunal that he had previous experience of handling people with hoists and had been trained in the use of handling belts. The Tribunal specifically asked whether he had ever been taught to move patients using clothing and he replied "no".

The Appellant initially went on day duty at the care home and Ms Thorpe stated that the Appellant had been present when after R had fallen he had been moved from a fallen position using slide sheets. The Appellant initially said that he could not remember the incident and then denied being present when anyone had fallen during the day shift.

The Tribunal found Ms Thorpe's account of the incident on day duty plausible.

26. One of the issues for the Tribunal is whether the lack of effective training negates and excuses the misconduct. In the Tribunal decision of Angela Mairs [2004] 269 PC at paragraph 109, misconduct is not defined in the legislation and it is not necessary to establish that it was either serious or gross misconduct. "In principle a single act of negligence could constitute misconduct (per Webster J in R –v- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ex parte Sokoh (1986) (The Times 4^th December) but in most cases the misconduct will be an incident forming part of a course of erroneous or incorrect behaviour undertaken by a person who knew or ought to have know what he or she was doing was contrary to the general law or to a written or unwritten code having particular application to his or her profession, trade or calling."
27. The Appellant was an experienced care worker who had at least six years of direct clinical experience handling residents. He acknowledged that he had received training in Singapore and that he had received training in using slide sheets albeit in relation to movement on a bed rather than on a floor and in the use of handling belts during his initial training at Kernow House.
28. The Tribunal accepts that it would be difficult to move R in a confined setting but there were other options such as using slide sheets to manoeuvre him on, or to the floor or the use of a handling belt.

The Appellant in his evidence to the Tribunal maintained that Ms Catulong and Ms Arenas had both been present when the Appellant and Ms Arenas moved R. The Appellant continued to appear reticent about revealing further information about any conversation between the three colleagues as they attended to R. In his witness statement ( Tribunal Bundle p161 para 7) the Appellant claimed that although M Catulong was present " I was not given any guidance or told that I was using the incorrect procedure ."

During the hearing the Appellant suggested that he had spoken to Ms Catulong before he moved R but he did not recount any verbal exchanges between the parties.

The Appellant claimed that both he and Ms Arenas working together moved R by his underpants. The Tribunal does not accept as credible that no discussion took place between the Appellant and Ms Arenas about how they both intended to move R. They would have had to liaise with each other to ensure they both moved him at the same time.

The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant may have been reluctant during the original investigations to expose his work colleague to criticism, however he no longer works at the care home therefore the lack of a detailed explanation of precisely what was said and what happened on May 22 nd 2004 does undermine the credibility of his account .

29. As an experienced senior care worker the Appellant should have been aware of the serious risk of harm in attempting to move a man the size of R by his underpants and therefore his action did constitute misconduct.
30. The Appellant lied when originally questioned about whether R had fallen and whether he used R's underpants to manoeuvre him but eventually admitted that he had done so. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant's behaviour in lying to the police, and during the internal investigations by Westminster Care of the complaint also amounted to misconduct.

The Tribunal cannot condone in any way the Appellant's repeated lying but it does accept that the Appellant was in a foreign country; he was scared of losing his job and his immigration status and was possibly intimidated by the police becoming involved in the investigations.

31. Nevertheless the failure of the Appellant to disclose what had happened and in particular to lie about R's fall are serious issues which do fall below what the public and his employers would be entitled to expect from any experienced care worker .and therefore amount to misconduct. The Appellant's extenuating personal circumstances though pertinent as to why he felt the need to lie repeatedly do not justify, excuse or extinguish the breach of trust to his employer and such behaviour cannot be ignored. An employer when investigating an allegation of ill treatment of a resident is entitled to expect its employees to tell the truth.
32. The legislation requires that the misconduct either caused harm or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult. The Tribunal heard different, sometimes conflicting accounts from Ms Aller ,Ms Thorpe and Mr Wing, of the possible physical damage to R's groin and scrotum area arising from the mis- handling of R.

A medical examination by a G.P. on May 26 th 2004 indicated that there were no lasting physical signs of injury. The question of the redness and soreness to the groin area was further complicated by a pre-existing tendency for the groin to suffer from excoriation. The Tribunal finds that the evidence of physical damage to R's groin area was inconclusive and that if any damage did occur it was limited.

33. Nevertheless the Tribunal did take note of R's comment in the Police Video that the manoeuvring did cause him physical pain and caused him to state that "he was cut in two" when the Appellant had moved him by his underpants. The Tribunal therefore finds that there was actual pain caused to R by the inappropriate handling by Appellant but it accepts that that no long term physical damage was caused to R.
34. The Tribunal further finds that by moving someone of R's size by his underpants the Appellant had placed R at risk of harm.
35. The Tribunal did not accept as proven the allegation that the Appellant had dragged R across the floor by his underpants. The Appellant firmly denied this allegation both in his witness statement and in his oral evidence and this was accepted by the Tribunal.
36. The Tribunal must also consider whether the Appellant is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. The Tribunal was referred to and has considered various Tribunal decisions including the Angela Mairs decision [2004] 269PC and C N –v- The Secretary of State 2004 also Quallo [2003]213 PC and Alabi [2004] 339PC , the latter two cases being helpfully reviewed in the recent decision in MB [2005]512PC .However ultimately as highlighted by the President of the CST in the decision in MB[2005]512 PC Para 21 "each case to come before the Tribunal must be looked at on its own facts. Context will be all important"
37. The Tribunal accepts that the training provided to the Appellant fell short of what should have been provided and that the Appellant was new to this country and likely to be influenced by his work colleagues.

However, the Appellant had at least six years previous experience of moving and handling elderly people in a residential care setting in Singapore involving elderly people and he should not have needed training to highlight the risk of moving a 20 stone man by his underpants.

38. The Appellant was employed as a senior carer but he admitted that he had never read R's care plan and that he had relied on Ms Catulong to write up any details of the fall in R's progress and evaluation record. This approach contrasted with the evidence given by Mr Wing, who was also a senior care worker, who stated that care workers would be expected to make entries in the progress and evaluation record for each of the residents and that he would record if a fall had taken place and then arrange for it to be countersigned by the RGN on duty.
39. There may have been omissions in the Appellant's moving and handling training but it is the lack of awareness of the risk that he was taking and in his failure to be aware of the need to even read R's records which causes the Tribunal concern.

Furthermore, the Appellant appears to have been unaware of the indignity and discomfort which was caused to R.

40. As previously stated the Appellant claimed in his witness statement ( Tribunal Bundle p 161 para 7) that although the RGN M Catulong was present " I was not given any guidance or told that I was using the incorrect procedure "

The Tribunal does not accept that the Appellant, an experienced care worker should have required guidance from an RGN to be aware that he was moving R in a totally unacceptable manner. The Appellant's need to rely on or blame others for his own poor decision despite his previous experience leads the Tribunal to be concerned whether faced with a different challenging situation the Appellant would be capable of making the right decision or would instead rely on others whatever the consequences

41. R was entitled to be handled correctly and to be treated with dignity and respect. The Tribunal accepts the Appellant did not intend to maliciously cause harm to R but the Appellant did not demonstrate any noticeable concern about how R might have felt about the way he was handled and still suggested that R might be lying about the fall itself in a written observation to the Respondent dated October 24^th 2004 following his provisional listing on the POVA list ( see Tribunal Bundle page 57).

" The Appellant in his witness statement ( Tribunal bundle page page161 para6) states that " I never received any complaint from the patient concerned and I do not believe that I ever caused him any distress other wise there would have been a previous complaint". The Tribunal does not accept that the absence of any previous formal complaints about the way the Appellant moved R indicates that R had previously suffered no distress. R had indicated directly to the Appellant that it caused him pain ( Tribunal bundle page 95 " It cut me in two I told him it hurt") when he was moved by his underpants .

Even later in the Appellant's witness statement dated January 15^th 2006 ( Tribunal bundle page 161 para 6) the Appellant states that any injury caused to R's groin might have been caused by R himself if he had struck the wheelchair as he fell .The Tribunal did not find this explanation plausible ; it also demonstrates that the Appellant was still willing to try to shift the blame or responsibility to R .

42. The Tribunal is very aware that there were other parties involved in the events leading to this Appeal who have not given evidence, most notably Ms Catulong and Ms Arenas.

The Tribunal was also surprised that Mr K Williams and the Manager of the home did not provide any evidence. The exact manner in which R was manoeuvred is still unclear and the Tribunal cannot be certain about the extent and manner to which Ms Catulong or Ms Arenas were involved in the movement of R .

43. Nevertheless at the heart of this issue is a vulnerable adult who was moved in a wholly inappropriate way which could have had serious consequences, i.e. if R had been dropped or fallen against his wheelchair or the sink as a result of this risky manoeuvre serious injury might have occurred.
44. It is the Appellant's inability to recognise the high risk he took in manoeuvring R in that manner and his willingness to deny on more than one occasion R had fallen in order to safeguard his own personal position that has caused the Tribunal to conclude that he is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. The training the Appellant received from his employer was less than ideal but as an experienced senior care worker he should have known that he was taking an unacceptable risk in moving R in such a manner . The Tribunal does not feel confident that faced with a different set of circumstances which might threaten his employment status that he would not seek to protect his own personal position rather than protect the vulnerable adult.
45. It is not inevitable that if the Appeal is dismissed under S86 of the CSA 2000 an appeal under POCA 1999 S4 must also be dismissed. However the Tribunal taking into account all the evidence does consider that the continuation of the name of the Appellant on the POVA list does make him unsuitable to work with children.
46. Accordingly, it is our unanimous decision that both appeals be dismissed.

Miss H Clarke (Nominated Chairman)

Mr M Flynn

Mrs C Wiggin

Dated March 13^th 2006