[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> CL v OFSTED [2008] EWCST 1226(EY-SUS) (25 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2008/1226(EY-SUS).html Cite as: [2008] EWCST 1226(EY-SUS)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


CL v OFSTED [2008] EWCST 1226(EY-SUS) (25 February 2008)

Mrs C. L. Appellant -v-
OFSTED [2008] 1226 EY-SUS Respondent -Before-
Mr A Wadling Mrs S Derrick Mr D Griffiths
Heard on 14 February 2008 at Pocock Street
DECISION
Representation
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms W Outhwaite
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Ofsted dated 16 January 2008 to suspend the Appellant under the Day Care (Suspension of Registration) Regulations 2003 ("The Regulations").
2. Prior to the commencement of the hearing it was agreed by all parties that there be a Restricted Reporting Order under Regulations 18 of the Protection of Children and Care Standards Regulations to prevent the publication of the names of any children, to protect the identity of vulnerable persons and to protect the private lives of the Appellants.

The Hearing

3. We received evidence from Mrs CL and her husband and for Ofsted, Inspector Daniels, Area Manager Holding, Sarah McKenna, Ofsted Inspector and DC Rawden of the Essex Police

The Facts

4. Mrs CL has been a registered childminder since1986. She is registered to care in her home for a maximum of six children under the age of eight. She was inspected in May last year and judged to be satisfactory. She has not been the subject of possible suspension or deregistration.
5. On 20 December 2007police officers obtained a warrant to search Mrs CL's premises under section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The purpose of the search of the home was for indecent images of young children and related material and to seize such equipment as may be storing material for distribution. Several computers were removed for examination but as the date of the hearing, their examination remains incomplete.
6. Information obtained by the police was to the effect that Mrs CL's elder son Martin was responsible for the presence of the indecent material and he was also "hosting a chat room" via his computer. It also transpired that he is waiting to be tried on a matter under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of exposing himself to young people.
7. Ofsted were notified of the events of 20 December and by a letter dated 3/01/2008, Mrs CL was suspended for six weeks under the Regulations and that suspension continues to be renewed.
8. The Regulations set out the purposes of suspension as follows;

(a) to allow time for the circumstances giving rise to the Chief Inspector's belief to be investigated

(b) to allow time for steps to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm.

9. As soon as Mr and Mrs CL became aware of the allegations against their son, they took the necessary steps to safeguard the minded children. On the day that the police visited the home Mrs CL took the children to the home of another registered child minder and informed Ofsted of the allegations against Martin. They also instructed Martin to leave and took steps to ensure that he was not able to return to the family home. However, Mrs CL was rightly criticised by Ofsted for not bringing the existence of his outstanding trial for a sexual offence. We do not find this to be a deliberate suppression of information by Mrs. CL.
10. We also note that the parents of the looked after children are keen to have Mrs CL continue to look after their children having been informed of the reasons for the suspension.
11. In reaching our decision we adopt the reasoning of the decision in LM v OFSTED at paragraph 28 "whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the continued provision of child minding may expose a child being minded by her to the risk of harm".
12. We have not heard or seen any evidence to support the claim that with the removal of Martin, a risk remains. The only reason that this issue remains unresolved is that the Essex Police have not provided the resources to carry out the analysis of the hard drives on the seized computers. Although the possibility of a risk cannot be totally eliminated, in the Tribunal's view this possibility is so small that it does not represent a "reasonable cause to believe that a child might be at risk."
13. As an aside we note that there are many companies who analyse hard drives for various law enforcement agencies and can complete the analysis required. There are many companies who provide this service to various law enforcement agencies and can complete the analysis required.

APPEAL ALLOWED

A Wadling (Nominated Chairman)

Mrs S Derrick

Mr D Griffiths

Date: 25 February 2008