Police have dropped charges - how do I 'forget' about all of this?

[WoodlandElf1]

I have to be a bit careful in what I say here but really tricky situation. Someone I work with, work associated with children, was accused of some terrible sexually abusive, grooming and rape crimes against a child. The police launched an investigation, but 6mths later said they felt the case wouldn't stand up in court. He will now return to working with me.
I don't believe he is innocent. Due to my connection to the case I know far more details than any other colleagues, and my logic, gut and everything in me tells me he is lying and has gotten away with this. I believe in innocent until guilty, I really do, but I also know the shocking statistics of actually how many paedophiles end up in court! When he was accused he kept changing his story and talked about it with such a sense of superior arrogance, it felt like seeing a completely different person - someone I'd never met, as if the mask slipped. I can't explain it I just know there is so much more to this than he says, and I believe the family. But I need to now set that aside and work with this individual again, I act in a type of mentor capacity - and I just can't do it if he returns. I cannot wilfully let him work with children again and I cannot support it. I know IABU - it's not my place to decide if he is guilty or not, but I am not an irrational person, or an overly emotional person, but nothing about this sits right with me. What do I do?

I don't think he could sue for unfair dismissal - it's rational and reasonable for an employer to say something along the lines of 'we are not prepared to take the risk of employing you in a sensitive position.' Because the risk that he is a predator is too great and the consequences to the vulnerable people the organisation serves are too awful.

ONLY the case if the organisation actually follow procedures. ACAS can give advice of your manager needs it.

And don't go to the funders. That is seriously unprofessional behaviour unless it is part of your whistle blowing procedures.

Note also OP that some professions can be struck off if they do not follow whistle blowing procedures when they know something, keep it quiet, and it later comes to light.

I said it does not actually matter if he is innocent - I said this in terms of following a process to investigate whether he is safe to return to work. Again someone I managed who worked with kids was investigated for assault. The man was actually attacked in a racist attack and his attacker made a counter claim that was investigated and dismissed. I had to go through a process and record that process as to whether he was safe to return to work with children. That involved speaking to LAPO, the police and the employee. This is normal and necessary to protect the organisation and children/vulnerable people. Of course he returned to work. But the point is that a process needs to be gone through.

Also, the manager may not be useless. If they have reported to LADO then they will absolutely not be free to tell OP that they have! That would break all confidentiality and safeguarding rules.

OP can only discuss reporting to her boss and/or report it herself, possibly both if she feels that is necessary.

Then neither she nor her boss will be able to do any more, least of all discuss it between them! As abucat said, once reported

They are NOT investigating whether he is guilty of the charge, but whether it is safe and appropriate he returns to work

Yes true, the manager will be acting illegally if they share information about this employee with colleagues. But they would be free to say they have investigated whether it is safe for them to return to work including talking to LAPO. In this case the OP may not agree with the decision, and may be right to, but the manager will have done waht they should have.

In that case the OP should contact the LAPO themselves, but say to the manager beforehand that they know more about the case but can not legally disclose this, so are going to contact LAPO themselves for advice for themselves. But tell the manager you are doing this beforehand.

As for the person talking about Christopher Jeffries, whilst I agree he was completely turned Over by the police and tabloid press, I wouldn't want him working with children or vulnerable people either.

Why on earth not? Joanna Yeates didn't come within either category, the Press fully admitted that there was no truth in the disgraceful stuff they printed, he had a wide circle of friends (including friends with children) who supported him to the hilt, and he had an unblemished career as a respected teacher for 34 years.

Utterly sensible advice from abacucat, but is anyone else surprised he wants to return to this particular role at all?

Call me naive, but if I'd had this kind of allegation made against me I'm not convinced I'd want to ut myself in that position again ...

Dropping charges does not mean innocent! Dropping charges simply means there is not enough concrete evidence to guarantee a conviction and CPS has judged that proceeding with a prosecution would be a waste of tax payers' money.

We don't know if he is innocent or guilty. The police and the OP don't know. Probably only he and the alleged victim truly know. We can't know if anyone is innocent or guilty in most cases. The only answer is good safeguarding procedures.

For the benefit of everyone involved (the children, the employer, and the man himself ) he should not be put in a position where he works unaccompanied with service users. He should not be expected to visit homes or ever be left alone behind a closed door with a vulnerable person. Nor should any other members of the organisation if only to protect from malicious accusations. It's just good practice.

@WoodlandElf1 I strongly suggest you talk to your managers about your concerns. If you don't want to say why you are worried about this person you can at least say that you don't want anyone to be in a position where accusations could be made. If further incidents occur after this 'warning' and the organisation has not taken appropriate action then they will be seriously at fault.

You do know if the vulnerable sector needed a degree and now they are effectively barred from it THERE IS NO EXTRA FUNDING TO GO BACK TO UNIVERSITY to get a new degree.

So if you are a teacher or a doctor where you have spent the better part of 5 years or more training you are not barred from these professions what "good paying" job can you get with those skills that does NOT require them going back to university (at there own total expense since there is NO MORE funding once you have a degree)

Oh you have a medical degree why are you not a doctor? oh you were accused of a serious crime well we not employing you probability risks etc.

People do not understand that someone is punished even if they are found not guilty, does not go to court. I could lie about something to the police too someone i did not like who has a job in a vulnerable sector i could be lying through my teeth but police do not have enough evidence to prosecute me for lying (you would not believe the threshold for the CPS to actually take someone who lied about a sexual offense to court. Emails and text messages saying i lied to police is NOT enough, they need that + a written confession and other supporting evidence that she lied before they would even consider a charge)

I strongly suggest you talk to your managers about your concerns ... If further incidents occur after this 'warning' and the organisation has not taken appropriate action then they will be seriously at fault

You're right of course, but I guess that would be just like every other child protection scandal, where those in authority have been warned and done nothing

Incidentally I have been in the position as a manager of going through the process of sacking someone, colleagues complaining about the person and saying the manager was useless for not doing anything - ME! - and I was unable to defend myself. You have to go through a process and keep confidentiality.

It is not the OP's concern if the colleague can not work in this field again. It is not even the manager's concern. To approach this issue from that perspective is the wrong approach.

The manager's only concern is whether this person is safe to return to work. That can mean for example if someone has been in a clients house out of work hours when an allegation was made, that they are not safe to return to work, even if they were innocent. Because they had behaved totally unprofessionally. Unprofessional behaviour is totally different to criminal behaviour.

DON'T RESIGN! Who would be there to help the children then, who believe he is lying to at least monitor his behaviour so it doesn't happen again.

People do not understand that someone is punished even if they are found not guilty, does not go to court I think people do understand that. And it is precisely because some people will take the full weight of that responsibility upon their own shoulders that the safeguarding laws of reporting are as they are.

In OPs situation I would consider myself to be under a legal obligation to report it to the next person in the safeguarding chain. It will then be reported onwards and upwards until it finds the officer with the knowledge to make specific decisions. OP may never hear any more about it. That is how the system works, to remove any feelings of guilt, doubt, hesitation from an individual with a safeguarding worry.

In OPs case, her colleague has been returned to work. He will know that there will be safeguarding issues arising from the case. He may even be in contact with the necessary people, he would be sensible to do so! So all OP will ostensibly doing is showing that she is aware of safeguarding protocol!

Following those procedures are the only way the colleague can either get on with doing the job or be removed, whichever is legally necessary!

I know the system does not always work effectively, but second guessing the reporting procedures only guarantees that it cannot!

at least monitor his behaviour so it doesn't happen again. NO! Again this is really bad advice! For the reasons I gave before!

OP's manager cannot tell her the details of an investigation/assessment currently being undertaken but should be able to say if safeguarding procedures have been followed to allow the person to return to work.
If OP isn't happy with the response and not everyone manages to follow safeguarding procedures properly she can choose to whistleblow, there should be an organization procedure for doing this which she should follow carefully. However the personal cost to whistleblowers can be high particularly in the short term. Often in the longer term they can end up with compensation for the way they are treated but it isn't something to do lightly.

Call me naive, but if I'd had this kind of allegation made against me I'm not convinced I'd want to ut myself in that position again ...

I’ve trained for several very gruelling years (6+) of full time education plus full time work, volunteered, and taken numerous professional skills development courses to get to where I am in my career.

Damn right if I was accused of something I hadn’t done and the police didn’t find me guilty and the whole stressful episode was over I’d return to my livelihood. The alternative for me would be starting again in minimum wage roles I couldn’t afford to accept, for years, and having to create an entirely different career in something I’m not passionate about.

So I can completely see why he plans to return!

Maybe you’re looking at it from the perspective of someone leaving one minimum wage care job to another, with fewer consequences to switching jobs. But for many people working with vulnerable individuals it’s a career rather than solely a job, and a very hard won one.

Could you ask if your employer has checked that if a family sue later for damages done by this man, the liability insurer would cover it under the circumstances?

This is an excellent idea. Insurers are rather risk averse.

Damn right if I was accused of something I hadn’t done and the police didn’t find me guilty and the whole stressful episode was over I’d return to my livelihood.

You don’t know this man hasn’t done what he is accused of. The police think he has, the OP think he has.

If you had been accused of a comparably serious crime relating to working with children, there would be a whole set safeguarding measures that would have to be followed by your organisation. It would not be up to you to determine whether you could continue, it would be for the organisation and other relevant bodies to decide whether you were a risk to children and fit to continue working with them.

I know. But my plan would be to return. I’m responding to a poster who is surprised he would make that choice, with my thoughts on why that might be. If something stops him that’s a different issue to his decision to attempt to go back to his job.

I don’t know he hasn’t done what he’s been accused of, neither do you, or the OP. All we can go on is the facts: he hasn’t been convicted, and our justice system (thankfully) operates on a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which he hasn’t been.

A trawl through current statistics showed that 4% of sexual abuse allegations are thought to be malicious.

Our safeguarding policies do not work on the principle that you are are always safe to work with children unless you have a relevant criminal conviction because reporting and conviction rates are too low to provide adequate protection as cases like Soham prove.

And people can be legally disbarred from working with children even with no criminal convictions.

All we can go on is the facts: he hasn’t been convicted, and our justice system (thankfully) operates on a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which he hasn’t been.

The presumption of innocence is simply a legal instrument within a court to the effect that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

No-one outside a court is obliged to presume someone is innocent who they believe may be guilty or vice versa.

The facts are that he hasn’t been convicted but the police believe, on balance, that he may have been guilty and so does a work colleague. On the basis of that, it’s certainly questionable and potentially risky that he should continue to work with children.

Our safeguarding policies do not work on the principle that you are are always safe to work with children unless you have a relevant criminal conviction because reporting and conviction rates are too low to provide adequate protection as cases like Soham prove.

Exactly.

Anyone who has followed Soham or Savile, Hall, Rolf Harris should know this.

As I commented above, a guy who runs children in need was asked why he had never let Savile work on it. He replied that he didn’t need a criminal conviction to tell him that Savile shouldn’t be working with children.

This is why we have the safeguarding procedures we have now.

a guy who runs children in need was asked why he had never let Savile work on it. He replied that he didn’t need a criminal conviction to tell him that Savile shouldn’t be working with children

I honestly didn't know about that, so have just been reading up on it

Very interesting - and a bit shaming, I have to admit, since I'm another who was taken in by the wretch

Bluntness100 The only sensible post on here.

OP - you don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Your manager is not going to run things past you to ensure you are happy with the situation. I'm sure his managers will check his work- it's not for you to take this on. Its inappropriate. And you could get into trouble.

If you don't want to work with him then resign. But let his mangers deal with it.