Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 93 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	V 1252 2011
Appellant:	SA
Respondent:	Disclosure and Barring Service
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	20/02/2013
Date Added:	08/03/2013
Main Category:	Safeguarding vulnerable groups
Main Subcategory:	Adults' barred list
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2013] AACR 21. Safeguarding vulnerable groups – adults’ barred list – whether theft is “relevant conduct” Following a failed business venture, in which she incurred debts of over £30,000, the appellant started work as a care worker for vulnerable adults. In 2006 she obtained full time work, from a care agency, caring for Mrs M. Mrs M was 89 years of age and was dependent on the appellant. The appellant’s duties included shopping for Mrs M who paid the appellant by cheque for her wages and the cost of the shopping. From January 2007 the appellant began to steal money from Mrs M – Mrs M signed blank cheques on which the appellant then entered sums exceeding the amount owed to her. After the agency became suspicious of the appellant’s activities the police were contacted. The appellant was charged and convicted of five offences of theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and was sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment of which she served eight months. The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) wrote to the appellant to say that it proposed to bar her from working with vulnerable adults by including her name on the Adults’ Barred List which it maintained under section 2 of the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). Under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act a person may be included on the List if he or she has engaged in “relevant conduct” and “it is appropriate to include the person in the list”. The ISA believed this might be the case with the appellant because of her convictions but also referred to a previous allegation of theft from a Mr X, another vulnerable adult, and because the appellant had made fraudulent claims for housing benefit. The ISA decided to include the appellant on the List and confirmed its decision, after considering the representations submitted on the appellant’s behalf. In doing so it relied on the convictions for theft from Mrs M and also found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had stolen money from Mr X (it made no further reference to the housing benefit fraud). The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that theft from a vulnerable adult was not “relevant conduct” under the 2006 Act as it did not endanger the vulnerable adult. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. causing vulnerable adults distress is to “harm” them, and theft by a carer from a vulnerable adult for whom he or she is caring is likely to cause, or at least risks causing, deep distress to the vulnerable adult should the vulnerable adult discover it, even if such conduct does not always actually cause harm. The legislation has the effect that creating such a risk of harm amounts to endangering a vulnerable adult, which in turn amounts to “relevant conduct” (paragraphs 17 to 19); 2. “relevant conduct” includes conduct which, if repeated against a vulnerable adult would endanger him or her. Theft from a vulnerable adult too incapacitated to be aware of the theft would also be “relevant conduct” (paragraph 20); 3. for this reason even housing benefit offences would amount to “relevant conduct”, but it was unlikely that the ISA would consider that “it is appropriate to include the person in the list” solely on the strength of such convictions, because, taken alone, the convictions would not indicate a preparedness or propensity to put a vulnerable adult at risk of harm (paragraph 21).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2013] AACR 21ws.doc