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?

Your employer should be conducting its own investigation about the issues before allowing this person back to work. As a PP said the burden of proof in an employment case is very different from a criminal one.

For example, if an employer caught an employee with money from petty cash in their car and called the police, the police (or CPS) may decide not to prosecute because they could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the employee took the money and put it in their car. However the employee may decide that as £250 went missing after the employee was left alone with the petty cash tin and £250 was found in the employee’s car there is enough evidence to form a reasonable belief in the employees guilt and therefore dismiss. The employee could scream “I didn’t do it!” until he’s blue in the face but a tribunal wouldn’t find the dismissal to be unfair.

You seem to indicate that there is some evidence pointing towards unacceptable activity and behavior by this employee so provided your company conducts a proper investigation it could still dismiss this person.

OP if you are going to follow an individual posters advice I would select
abacucat who has laid out the various options that are open or not to you.

@worridmum you know victims of child sexual abuse suffer as well. Losing your job isn't the worst thing that can happen to you.

So what’s your suggestion Suttree? Given that the police haven’t found him guilty, OP isn’t his manager, and none of us (including OP) have any idea whether he’s done something illegal or not? my suggestion is that he doesn't work with vulnerable people.

my suggestion is that he doesn't work with vulnerable people.

So you’re giving advice to either the man in question or his employer, neither of which are on this thread, while I’m giving advice to the actual OP. Okay

@SlipperyNettle - your advice so far is "reee let the suspected pedo work with children" thats great that is.

Do what abacucat says. Great advice from someone who's been there.

Suttree your reading comprehension is pretty shocking for someone trying to critique other people’s posts.

If I had your knowledge I couldn't walk away I'd probably stay and watch this guy like a hawk if I could.

@SlipperyNettle - you've repeatedly said he should return to work.

reee let the suspected pedo work with children

But he's been investigated by the police and safeguarding boards. The only suspicion is int eh OPs mind. Theres being no action taken so he's not a suspect anymore (yet).

I agree, theres no smoke without fire but we don't know the details. He is being allowed back to work - to his previous role - so one has to assume he isn't guilty. Im sure if there was any evidence of him being inappropriate he would be moved to another role or sacked.

But your 'hunch' and dislike of this man isn't enough for him to be sacked.

Just coming back to this - thank you for all the helpful responses. Also to some others, I have never suggested he should be sacked on my hunch or that I should be judge, jury and executor, I don't think that is helpful to anyone. I am saying in my heart, given the extent to which I was exposed to this, and his reactions to me about it, I feel I can no longer work with him or mentor him. I feel in an impossible position. I cannot believe he is innocent, and no-one will change my mind on that, but that also doesn't give me the right to decide his fate. As said before the LADO is aware and I was speaking to manager today - we are a small organisation and this issue has knocked us all sideways so he is exploring our options and responsibilities.

I cant believe so many people would destroy a persons life just because they dont like someone or have a 'gut' feeling about them. The police investigated and didn't find any/enough evidence that they had done anything wrong.

If we go down that rabbit hole then anyone who takes a dislike to a college can make an allegation and destroy their life, take away their job, children, partner and all because someone 'felt' they were dodgy. That is anarchy.

I think the OP said that she had access to more information that just a gut feeling.

Of course she can’t say here what that information is.

As has been said several times child protection guidelines for working with children are not the same as criminal convictions.
It isn't anarchy, there is a reasonably well worn path for assessing if someone with allegations but not convictions is safe to work with children. If these are not followed the person has protection in law.
Making an allegation of sexual abuse is a serious and distressing thing to do. It is unlikely to be done on a whim because you have taken a dislike to someone, this is why only 4% of allegations are thought to be malicous or invented.
Let us be clear that what really destroys people's lives is child sex abuse which is what the safeguarding procedures are put in place to prevent.

Where I work, all frontline staff have to have an enhanced DBS check, which includes all information held by the police.

If someone gets arrested/investigated, they are suspended. Before they can come back to work, HR get a new enhanced DBS done and then they and a senior manager in the relevant service consider if new information contained in it is of sufficient concern for them terminate their employment.

The organisation has won awards for its employment practices, so I'd expect they way they do this stuff is pretty squeaky clean. They also achieve excellent ratings from the CQC in every area, but especially in safeguarding, so I suspect that what they do is a model of good practice. It also seems an eminently sensible approach to take with regard to working with children or vulnerable adults.

The policy/procedure is among all the safeguarding stuff. I'd guess if your organisation works with children, they'd have to have a safeguarding protocol, so it might be worth taking a look to see what it says.

Exactly Lakie. Either the management have fully discussed the situation, taken legal advice and considered their opinion, or they have no clue and need to be closed down immediately.

As someone already said... Person can be on the 'not to work with vulnerable people' with no criminal convictions....

As we know there are many, many abusers out there who have not been prosecuted...

Absesbe of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

Malicious allegations are a tiny tiny proportion.. Usually 2-3% and tend to fall apart fairly quickly.. (apart from the rape charge /exhonerating text message debacles earlier this year)

The 2-3% statistic is so troubling when set against UK conviction rates for sexual crime.

I suspect the 2-3% are under represented in cases that come to court...

In the 93% of accused rapists that get as far as court that get off... Many of these will have had enough shade /doubt thrown in the accusation by clever defence barristers.... Often not difficult as so many rapes have no witnesses....
Ah yes Ms Smith, can you be absolutely sure the average height, dark haired man could have been any of the thousands average height dark haired men who were out that night in London... Etc etx

Given the tiny number of accusations of sexual abuse which turn out to be false/malicious, when set against the much larger number of accusations of abuse which are dismissed or brushed under the carpet, allowing the accused to carry on abusing with impunity, sacking people who have been accused of such crimes is fair enough - unless an investigation can prove, conclusively, that the accusation was false or malicious.
At the moment, though, the hurt feelings of 'good' men are still prioritized over the safety of children, vulnerable adults and women.

how are you expected to not be on edge and follow him everywhere, he should not be in that work place especially if it is where the alleged crime took place.

"Guilty" until proven innocent is very Wrong. :(

When I was on preschool committees & involved with hiring, no way we would have hired anyone with even a relevant investigation in their past. I had to explain (campaign) hard to others about our obligation to only consider relevant convictions or investigations. Still, a relevant investigation was enough to justifiably rule out hiring someone b/c our customers were vulnerable. So I'm surprised the chap thinks he has a future career in this area. It will appear in every DBS statement (won't it?)

had to explain (campaign) hard to others about our obligation to only consider relevant convictions or investigations.

So you campaigned ‘hard’ to ignore convictions or investigations that weren’t directly relevant, but others may feel were an indication of unsuitablity of character?

Surely the children’s safety was paramount?

Even the small amount of info given by OP has me convinced he's a peodophile...the arrogance, the lies, the gut feeling. Please explore every avenue for getting him sacked. It shouldn't be up to you to be burdened with the knowledge and dilemma but seeing as hardly any of them get prosecuted then its basically left to the rest of society to do what we can to minimise access by these perverts to children.