England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Bronger v Secretary Of State for Children, Schools and Families [2008] EWCST 1334(PC) (17 September 2008)

RODNEY BRONGER

Appellant

-v-

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

Respondent

[2008] 1334.PC

ORDER

1. The Appellant has been placed on both the PoVA and PoCA lists, having been imprisoned for two and a half years upon his plea of guilty to three offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 involving sexual activity, or incitement to sexual activity, with a female with a mental disorder, who was a patient under his charge. He has not challenged his inclusion on the PoVA list but has appealed against the decision to include him on the PoCA list, stating, among other things, that he would never harm a child, that the sentencing judge "recommended that I should not be disqualified from working with children", that he had been unaware of the 2003 Act when he committed the offences and had also been unaware of the mental age of the vulnerable adult who was his victim and that he now understands the possible consequences for a vulnerable adult of such inappropriate behaviour.
2. The Secretary of State now applies for the appeal to be struck out on the ground that it is misconceived and has no reasonable prospect of success. He submits that it is obvious that the Appellant must be included in the PoCA list and that the sentencing judge merely discharged an order barring the Appellant from working with children that the court had not had power to make because the claimant had not been charged or convicted of an offence against a child. The Appellant has been invited to make written observations and has been given the opportunity to ask for a hearing, but no reply has been received.
3. I agree with the Secretary of State's submission that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. Although the Appellant may not have realised that he was committing a criminal offence, he should have realised that his conduct was wholly inappropriate, given his responsibility for caring for the vulnerable adult, and that it would harm the vulnerable adult. The lack of judgement demonstrated by the Appellant in committing those offences must inevitably be found to be so enormous that he must equally inevitably be found to be unsuitable to work with children, not because of any particular risk of him committing any sexual offence towards a child, but because his judgement in regard to other matters could not be relied upon. Public confidence in the listing system requires that a person who has shown such an absence of judgement in relation to the care of vulnerable adults should be found unsuitable to work with children.
4. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and I strike it out under regulation 4A(1)(d) of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/816, as amended by S.I. 2004/2073 and S.I. 2007/1684).

ORDER ACCORDINGLY

MARK ROWLAND

Nominated chairman

17 September 2008