188体育

Read the full decision in .

Judicial Summary

鈥淭he Appellant appealed the decision of 24 July 2019 of the Respondent (the Disclosure and Barring Service or 鈥楧BS鈥�) to include his name in the Children鈥檚 Barred List (鈥淐BL鈥�) pursuant to paragraph 2(8) of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (鈥渢he Act鈥�) - 鈥榓utobar with representations鈥�. The decision letter relied on the fact that a police caution had been issued to the Appellant on 18 December 2018 (鈥渢he Caution鈥�). The Decision letter explained the nature of the Caution: 鈥榊ou admitted to the Police that you were interested in bestiality and were subsequently found to be in possession of 41 鈥榣ive movie clips鈥� and 72 still images relating to this.鈥�
The Appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal on each ground. In particular the Tribunal was satisfied that the DBS was entitled to conclude that the material the Appellant sought, had been cautioned for possessing and the evidence he gave about this, demonstrated his 鈥榟arm supportive thinking鈥� that the abuse of adults and animals involved in such material is acceptable. The Appellant recently and willingly broke the law for his own pleasure by viewing and possessing such material.
The Tribunal was satisfied that it was rational for the DBS to decide that the Appellant demonstrated no insight into the harm caused to humans (to him as viewer and the human participants in the material) by his viewing and storing of criminal pornography and that viewing the material perpetuated the harm. The DBS was entitled to find that the Appellant manifested 鈥榟arm supportive thinking鈥� and was prepared to transgress legal boundaries in its risk assessment that this mindset may be transferrable such that he may pose a risk to any children in his care. It is not for the Tribunal to conduct its own risk assessment or substitute its own view on appropriateness but the 鈥榯ransferability of mindset鈥� was a rational reason for the DBS to rely on.鈥�