Some months ago I posted about a serious fraud at the Abbey School Reading, which was duly removed by moderators in case it compromised any legal proceedings. I accept that was the correct thing to do however, matters have moved along and sentencing was held yesterday (25th Oct 18) at Oxford Crown Court against Michael David Rowley. Mr Rowley pleaded guilty to stealing in excess of £530,000 from the school and a sentence of 5.3 years for theft and a (consecutive) sentence of 9 months for fraudulently gaining employment with the school in the first place, was handed down.
When asked in court where the money was, Mr Rowley refused to answer, though investigation reveals he bought a run down detached house around the time he began stealing - which is now apparently very 'plush'. My understanding is that there is going to be a 'proceeds of crime hearing' on the 4th April 2019.
It transpires Mr Rowley has two previous convictions for theft from an employer for which he received jail sentences (in 1989 and 2000).. so why was he ever employed by The Abbey School in the first place.?
But back in 2004/5 ..and in order to gain employment with the Abbey School, Mr Rowley omitted details of his criminal past on his application (through an employment agency - who no doubt were paid handsomely to check his eligibility, his application and references) and Rowley produced a CRB (DBS) certificate in such a way as to omit the two entries detailing his criminal history.
My concern is this. Matters involving DBS checks have moved on since 2005 and instead of accepting a copy of an existing certificate from Rowley, my understanding is that employers are now required to apply for a fresh DBS on prospective employees, regardless of whether the employee already has one (with a previous employment).
Moreover, it is deemed best practice to update DBS checks every three years.
I notice The Abbey Schol has just updated its policy on DBS yet still states "Periodic renewals for existing staff Regular DBS checks or barred list checks are NOT required by the School for existing staff unless there are concerns about their suitability to work with children. In this case, the School may carry out all relevant checks as if the person were a new member of staff".
I find this astounding and want to know whether The Abbey School - in light of this case - has initiated DBS updates on its staff. Not to do so is surely tantamount to negligence. Not only has Rowley cost the school a great deal of money, he cost another good man his job (sacked for failing to properly manage Rowley, despite being the person who uncovered the theft).. whilst the person in overall control of the finance office carries on as normal..?
Moreover, parents who had paid their fees were pursued by the school for non payment - through Rowley's meddling - unitl they could prove otherwise.
And finally, if Rowley managed to slip through the net and unlawfully gain employment with the school, surely the management should take steps to update all staff DBSs as a matter of urgency and to be able to 'draw a line' from which to go forward.