Youth worker dismissed for “lewd” messages to teen complained that DBS referral jeopardised job chances

Thursday 12 April 2018

A Youth Service worker who was dismissed after being found to have sent “lewd” messages to a 17-year-old on social media complained that his case was misconstrued by the Education Department to background check officials, potentially jeopardising a career of over 30 years and impacting his mental health.

The man – referred to as Mr X in a States Complaints Board report to protect his anonymity – was sacked in 2014 for “gross misconduct” following a complaint about the messages by a counsellor at the Youth Enquiry Service (YES).

In an interview with Youth Service employees prior to his dismissal, Mr X acknowledged that the content of his messages to a 17-year-old user of the service had been “lewd and inappropriate”. They were deleted by both parties and not available during his disciplinary proceedings for review, but Mr X clarified years later that his use of the word ‘lewd’ referred to “one single incident of sending a text containing profane language.”

Following his dismissal, Mr X took up a new job at a UK charity and was reported to have been “open” about his departure from the Youth Service. Having interviewed Mr X and the teenager, the Police decided that the man had not committed a criminal offence, and so he was able to present a ‘clean’ record.

But two months into his new role, he was “profoundly shocked” to receive a letter stating that the Education Department would be making a referral to the UK Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to bar him from working with children and vulnerable groups. After more than three decades working with children, including an “unblemished” seven years in Jersey’s Youth Service, Mr X feared that the black mark against his name could mean that he would be left with no choice but to return to university to train in an alternative field.

In a complaint to the SCB, he also expressed a number of concerns about how the barring referral – described as having a “devastating” impact on his life – was handled. Among his concerns were that he was not warned about a barring referral, it was not actioned until several months after he had been dismissed, and that no records were kept of the Education Department’s telephone conversations with Police, which were said to have formed a crucial part of the evidence leading to the endorsement on his certificate.

Having had sight of the referral form following a request under data protection legislation, he alleged that the comments made about him on the referral form – which ticked a box stating that he had ‘harmed a child’ – constructed a “narrative that [was] highly likely to mislead.” He argued that it should have included references to his “good character and previously unblemished career” and therefore lacked balance. 

Furthermore, email correspondence regarding his case was argued to be “over-redacted to such an extent that a different picture from reality would have been created.”

Paperwork from the States of Jersey Police, however, stated that it was right for the information about Mr X to be disclosed to new employers. “The aim is to highlight that this behaviour may be repeated and lead to children or vulnerable adults coming into contact with Mr. X being subjected to grooming and sexual assault. There is no other legitimate way of advising prospective employers of these facts,” it read.

Defending the department’s actions, HR Business Partner Mrs Granfield stated that Mr X’s dismissal had prompted her to attend a training event entiteld ‘Meeting your legal duty to refer’, presented by a DBS case worker. It was after this session, and subsequent discussions with the trainer and Law Officer’s Department that she decided to make the referral – her only to DBS to date.

She also felt that her referral had not been too slow, even though his new position had already placed him into contact with young people, adding that any delay incurred was due to seeking correct legal advice.

The SCB – presided by Chairman Geoffery Crill – concluded that the Education Department should have warned Mr X in advance of the intention to make a referral against him to DBS and recommended “greater diligence” in making records of conversations relating to employee records.

They stated that the delay in proceedings was “less than ideal”, but nonetheless concluded that “in the context of the protection of children, a later referral is better than no referral”

“The Complaints Board wishes to emphasize… that the protection of children and vulnerable adults should be paramount, and any decision made which relates to such protection, should always err on the side of caution.”