Hodkin v Secretary of State [2010] UKFTT 76 (HESC)

FTT-HESC
Hodkin v Secretary of State
[2010] UKFTT 76 (HESC) · 2010-02-24
Hodkin v Secretary of State [2010] UKFTT 76 (HESC) (24 February 2010) Inclusion on PoCA list   Neil Hodkin   v   Secretary of State   [2008]1348.PC/1349.PVA   Before Mr Laurence Bennett (Tribunal Judge) Ms Marilyn Adolphe Ms Pat McLoughlin     Heard:          19-23 October 2009                             Manchester AIT, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester       Representation:[1]Mr Neil Hodkin was assisted by Mr Michael Barnes of FACT, a representative organisation.[2]Ms Kate Olley, of Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor represented the Secretary of State accompanied by Mr Adam Rossiter, Solicitor and Miss Sally Duffy of DCSF.   Appeal:[3]Mr Hodkin appeals under Section 4(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 against the decision of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families under Section 1 of that Act to include him in the list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children.[4]Mr Hodkin appeals under Section 86(1) of the Care Standard Act 2000 against the decision of the Secretary of State for Health under Section 81 of that Act to include him in the list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.   Restricted Reporting Order[5]On 9 March 2009 His Honour

Judge David Pearl, Principal Judge of the Tribunal ordered:

"There be a Restricted Reporting Order under Rule 14(1)(b) prohibiting the publication (including by electronic means) in a written publication available to the public, or the inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales, of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify any service user, child or vulnerable adult, such order to continue in force until the conclusion of the hearing and the Tribunal to consider its continuation at the hearing itself."
[6]This order is extended until the time for appeal has expired or if an appeal is made until further order of the Upper Tribunal but subject to such order shall continue indefinitely in relation to A, K and ZB.  It shall not extend in this way to Michael Lowe, now an adult and the subject of a police warning.   Preliminary Directions:[7]On 30 March 2009 His Honour Judge Pearl on the application of the Respondent Secretary of State appointed Ms Valerie Sheehan and Dr Joe Sullivan of Mentor Associates to provide expert evidence in the form of a report and evidence at the hearing.[8]On the application of Mr Barnes, unopposed by Miss Olley we admitted three documents which Mr Barnes stated their significance had only been realised at the hearing.   Evidence:[9]Oral evidence at the hearing was unsworn.[10]A Police report dated 8 October 1999 gives details of a Police observation:
"There is a male at the address aged approx 15 who has just come out of the house with nothing on his feet and has masking tape across his mouth and round his wrists."
It includes:
"The occupant of the house appears to be trying to coax the male back into number 65." "
On arrival of Police Officer Hodkin answered the door, Michael Lowe (although his name was redacted in the report) was sat in an armchair in the living room with his hands tied behind his back with plasti-cuffs on the floor, screwed up was a length of black masking tape.  Hodkin and Michael Lowe were then spoke to separately.  Michael Lowe stated that it was a game and that Hodkin had tied him up to 'flour and egg him' as it was his birthday last week.  When asked further it seems that Michael Lowe visits this address every couple of weeks as a respite for his mother who is recovering from cancer op."  Mr Hodkin was interviewed at the time, the officer concerned concluded:
"I felt that there were insufficient grounds for initiating the PPO at that stage."
[11]DCI Tonge of the Greater Manchester Police who was involved in the investigation into this incident described police activity that followed and referred to police intelligence reports included within the Tribunal bundle.[12]Mr Hodkin accepts that the incident took place and that Michael Lowe's (ML) wrists were placed in cable ties and masking tape was attached to his mouth.  He does not accept that ML was undressed to any extent save for his shoes.  He stated that he had not been involved or present when ML aged fourteen at the time and another boy K, also fourteen had done this as a prank.  He said that he entered into the spirit of the prank by suggesting he would egg and flour ML but this was not his intention.  He believes the incident took place earlier than the time stated in the police report.[13]ML told us that what started as a play fight developed into the incident reported.  The police asked him whether he was alright and he explained that he and a friend were messing about "play fighting."  Any statement he made to the police was wrong in that it did not mention K.  ML explained that K was a friend from the estate and they went to Mr Hodkin's home to play games and watch television.[14]ML denied making a statement dated 22 August 2000 produced by DCI Tonge which includes:
"My birthday is ….  Just after my birthday in 1998, probably early October, I was at Neil's home.  Neil and ZB (redacted reference to Mr Hodkin's girlfriend) had split up at this point.  Neil and I were messing about play fighting.  We ended up in the back garden.  Neil tied me to a chair with cable ties.  I was wearing a tee shirt and shorts at the time.  Neil threw a bucket of flour over me and some eggs.  I did not know it at the time but Neil had set up a camcorder in my bedroom which overlooks the back garden, he was filming me being egged and floured.  He later showed me the video.  I have since been told by Neil that he had destroyed the video.  He did not say why he had destroyed it.  In early October last year Neil was going to egg and flour me again, he had tied my hands with hand ties, my hands were tied behind my back.  I did not want eggs and flour over me so I told Neil I needed some shoes.  Neil went upstairs to get me some shoes.  I took that opportunity to leave the house by the front door.  I was only wearing shorts.  I went outside and started shouting to Neil.  Neil came outside after me.  Neil had originally put tape over my mouth which did not stick well.  As Neil came outside he shouted 'GET IN' to me.  We were just messing about.  After a few minutes the police turned up and we explained to them that we were just messing about, which we were."
DCI Tonge took a further statement on 25 September 2000 which was signed by both ML and his father but which refers to the earlier statement.[15]ML repeated at the hearing that he could not remember giving the earlier statement or agreeing with it in any later statement.  He denied that he made the statement or signed it.  DCI Tonge said that information may have been included within the statement gathered from previous intelligence and visits and a final statement completed and signed.  Because of ML's age, a parent would also have signed.  ML's father's typed signature was on the statement.[16]DCI Tonge explained that original records and materials regarding these events have been mislaid but he personally attended Middleton Police Station and recovered a file containing copy statements and other information relating to the investigations.  He said that it could not be ascertained whether ML signed his original statement dated 22 August 2000 but said it would have been signed by his adoptive father as the accompanying adult.  Whilst the original was lost and ML has since denied the contents, DCI Tonge believes that he made the statement and its contents are true and that ML's challenge is not credible.  DCI Tonge was involved in ML's second statement which he also believes to be true.  He said that any retraction or derogation from that statement is "nonsense" and that he would not have asked for a signature to it unless he knew it was a true statement.[17]DCI Tonge stated the abbreviation VI on Police records most likely referred to "Video Interview" although he was clear that none had taken place in relation to ML but he explained the abbreviation is also used for "Victim Interview".[18]DCI Tonge referred to a Police Intelligence Report dated 3 July 2000 which he said arose from a report by ML's parents that he was missing and the subsequent search of Mr Hodkin's home.  The report states:
"On arrival at the premises the occupier Hodkin denied that the MPN was present.  He had also hidden all the child's belongings in the loft in case police attended.  An ex girlfriend of Hodkin's states she has seen a video at his address where ML is tied up to a chair only wearing underpants ….."
The incident is further recorded as:
"ML reported MFH from home address on 2 July 2000.  He was found a.m. 3 July 2000 at …….. which is home address of Neil Hodkin ……. Whilst relatively unknown to police, Hodkin has items of police/ambulance equipment in possession which he has purchased.  His connection with MFH is that he used to be engaged to his cousin whilst both were working for Ambulance Service which he has now left.  Whilst nothing has been confirmed at this stage information suggests that Hodkin's relationship with ML may be more than just friendship….."
[19]ML said that he had known Mr Hodkin since the age of ten through Mr Hodkin's girlfriend who was related to ML's adopted parents.  He visited Mr Hodkin regularly, sometimes staying over a weekend.  This continued after Mr Hodkin's relationship with his girlfriend ended.  The statement dated 22 August 2000 refers to Mr Hodkin buying ML designer clothing, jewellery, watches, pager and mobile phones from about two years before and includes:
"After they had split up I continued visiting Neil Hodkin, Neil was still buying me clothing, he was friendly with me and I had met a few people round the area who had become friends.  Sometimes some of my friends would come to Neil's house when I was there……… I had my own bedroom at Neil's house.  I kept all my clothing at Neil's, that is the clothing Neil bought me.  I would change back into my normal clothing before going home to my parents.  I never told my parents about the clothing Neil bought me because I knew my mother wasn't happy about him buying me clothes."
Mr Hodkin stated that ML's parents were happy and comfortable with the circumstances.[20]In July 2000 Mr Hodkin travelled to his house in Scarborough for a holiday.  He stated he did not arrange for ML to join him but ML came separately of his own accord to follow him.[21]ML's statement of 22 July 2000 includes:
"Going back to 15 July 2000 Neil said to me that I couldn't go to Scarborough on the train because of television cameras on the trains.  Neil agreed that I could go to Scarborough and said it would have to be by coach.  That day I travelled to Manchester to meet Neil.  I met him by the Piccadilly Hotel.  Neil picked me up in his car which is a white Volvo.  He took me to the coach station, parked his car up, he gave me £6 cash and said you'll have to get the ticket because there are cameras inside.  I bought the ticket…."
ML mentions phone calls with Mr Hodkin whilst on the journey and how he was met outside the bus station and given some money for amusement arcades whilst Mr Hodkin took his bag.  Mr Hodkin then took him to one of the garages he owns in Scarborough in which a tent had been erected complete with camping equipment and a two-way radio.  He stated that on Thursday 20 July 2000 he was contacted at 3:30am by Mr Hodkin who told him the police had been to his address.  They made arrangements to meet later when he was taken to Neil's house at Long Westgate, Scarborough.  Some time later when he felt he had been abandoned, he telephoned the police who came for him, although "I told the police in Yorkshire and at Middleton the next day that Neil did not know I was in Scarborough and that I went there without Neil's knowledge."[22]DCI Tonge stated that as a result of his investigations he prepared a Harassment Warning which he served personally on Mr Hodkin on 26 September 2000.  A copy (unsigned) within the Tribunal bundle is in the form "I Detective Sergeant 7604 R Tonge, have this date, 26 September 2000, warned NEIL HODKIN of ….. under the Harassment Act.  NEIL HODKIN has been told that if he directly or indirectly in person or via written communication continues to harass ML ….. of …… that he, HODKIN, will be arrested and prosecuted.  HODKIN has been told to cease all forms of direct and indirect communication with ML."  Mr Hodkin said that he did not receive such formal warning and pointed to the lack of a signature on the copy produced to the Tribunal.[23]DCI Tonge also referred to a Police file that contains a report that on 29 June 2002 Police were called to Mr Hodkin's address by ML.  It stated he had been punched on the nose following a fight with Mr Hodkin:
"Toy fighting which got out of hand and culminated in minor abrasions to each party."
The matter was not taken further.  This incident was not denied by Mr Hodkin.  He said it was a play fight where a young man was trying to assert his authority.[24]DCI Tonge commented upon Mr Hodkin's acquisition of play equipment, discovery following a search of ML's belongings in Mr Hodkin's loft on 29 June 2002 and the missing person activity relating to A.  DCI Tonge explained that his concerns were such that he reported to Force Intelligence, NCIS and said that had grooming offences been available at that time, he would have considered charging Mr Hodkin.[25]ML made a statement on 10 January 2006 with the aid of his solicitor Mr Charles Smith.  He gave details of his contact with Mr Hodkin and described the incidents involving cable ties and Mr Hodkin taking him in at his own insistence when he left his parents' home after an argument.  He stated that he hid his bag in Mr Hodkin's loft as he told the police when they arrived during the early hours of the morning.  He also stated that he went to Scarborough where Mr Hodkin was on holiday but did not find him at the address he expected and gave details of subsequent telephone conversations with Mr Hodkin when he was told he was in Scarborough Police Station.  This which led to him call Manchester Police and subsequently Scarborough Police.  He mentioned that he was aware that several weeks later a witness statement had been prepared but he does not recall signing it.  He also described events following a burglary at Mr Hodkin's house.  The statement ends with:
"In the circumstances I submit that the information, facts and matters set out in the two purported witness statements from myself and in the disclosure from the police should be completely disregarded and that it should not be taken into account at all in relation to disclosures concerning Neil Hodkin.  The information contained in the statements is inaccurate and misleading.  I also understand that procedures require video interviews to be undertaken with young people under sixteen in circumstances where abduction or sexual offences are alleged.  I also point out that it is also clear from another intelligence log that other officers had interviewed me upon my return from Scarborough and I had informed them that Neil had not been involved in my disappearance.  However this fact is not included in the police disclosure."
[26]ML continues to have regular contact with Mr Hodkin including a period when he lived at Mr Hodkin's home with his girlfriend whilst he arranged other accommodation.   Mr Hodkin stated that he has helped and supported ML to mature into a responsible, independent and conscientious adult who has a good job.  He continues to encourage and support him.   ML commented that Mr Hodkin likes helping people.[27]In 2003 Mr Hodkin applied for a full-time position at Advanced Childcare Ltd (ACC) which operates residential children's homes, fostering and educational services.  He applied to be a Residential Care Worker at company's Alexandra Road premises.  He was offered a position on 10 June 2003 following interview and started on 21 July 2003.  Mr Kamran Abassi now Operations Director of ACC was at the time a Regional Director, Head of Division, South Asian Project based at Alexandra Road, stated that Mr Hodkin provided references, showing ML as his current employer, his former girlfriend ZB as a previous colleague/employer and Mr S Fitchett as an employer/character referee.[28]The reference signed by ML on 20 March 2003 mentions:
"Particular success with his nephew" and that: "
Neil started to take an interest in this boy when he was about ten.  By showing him interest and spending time undertaking activities with him, Neil managed to distract the boy from street culture and drug abuse.  The boy is now nearly eighteen.  He now resides at Neil's address ……."[29]Mr Abassi said that ACC required CRB checks on all shortlisted persons.  Mr Hodkin's CRB disclosure referred to convictions under the Theft Act 1968 which were considered spent convictions and did not rule out employment by ACC.  He would have received induction training and in Mr Abassi's opinion would be well aware of ACC's then Code of Conduct, subsequently updated.  He did not mention any difficulties in Mr Hodkin's employment or complaints about his work.[30]On 24 October 2003 Mr Hodkin wrote to the Project Manager at ACC expressing:
"My keen interest in the proposed new fostering project.  I am especially interested in this project due to major changes in my domestic circumstances which "are making it difficult for me to continue working shifts within the company's residential units…."
He gave details of his career.  In due course he completed an application form in which he offered ML, ZB and Ms Debra Hadfield as his referees although Mr Abassi did not find a reference from ML in relation to this application.  The application form contained a warning stating the need to disclose cautions, convictions and/or any other relevant information.[31]In the process of this application ACC received an enhanced CRB disclosure dated 9 September 2004 with a letter dated 10 September 2004 setting out:
"Information provided to me from Greater Manchester Police Intelligence System is as follows."
This mentioned incidents involving ML in 1999 and July 2000, gave details of the formal Harassment Act warning on 25 September 2000 and a Police Protection Order in November 2001.   Mr Abassi said that this disclosure raised serious child protection concerns not least that the child concerned was ML who was identified by Mr Hodkin as a current employer and who gave a reference to ACC in[2002]32.           Mr Hodkin was suspended by ACC on 12 September 2004 confirmed by letter dated 14 September 2004; he was in due course dismissed.  Mr Abassi stated ACC had to bear in mind issues of confidentiality and limited information would have been given to others about the reasons for Mr Hodkin's absence from the Home although now safeguarding issues would be shared.[33]Mr Abassi gave reasons why the contents of the disclosures were considered serious and referred to subsequent correspondence leading to a third enhanced CRB disclosure dated 22 November 2004 which contained slightly revised details which he considered did not render inappropriate action taken on the first enhanced disclosure.  Mr Abassi said that Mr Hodkin failed to disclose this information during the recruitment process.  Mr Hodkin does not consider he was required to disclose this information as he was not aware that he had received a Harassment Act warning and said he had no knowledge of the Police Protection Order; it was not mentioned in the first CRB disclosure.[34]ACC management was concerned on several levels.  Mr Abassi stated that there were concerns relating to the nature of the events disclosed and their obvious relevance to Mr Hodkin's involvement with children.  They were such they would have expected disclosure of matters such as a PPO and Harassment Warning by Mr Hodkin because of the nature of the work and need to safeguard young persons. He said that the onus is upon an individual to divulge matters which could cast any doubt however small, even a traffic offence.  Other concerns included bypassing vetting procedures which provide a safety net for very vulnerable children.[35]A letter signed by Mr Patrick Hall, Operations Director of ACC dated 14 September 2004 informed Mr Hodkin:
"Following a recent CRB check, information has come to light that requires further clarification.  This letter is to inform you that you are suspended on full pay as from 3.00pm 14th September, 2004 to facilitate further enquiries.  The suspension is without prejudice and is not itself a disciplinary action. I will direct that further enquiries are made and will contact you at the conclusion of the process.  As yet no decision has been made on how to proceed but, it may be that you will be invited to a disciplinary hearing following which one of a number of sanctions may be imposed. I will contact you at the conclusion of the management investigation to inform you on how matters are to proceed. The usual rules of suspension apply i.e. you should not have any contact with Alexandra road or any other Advanced Childcare staff."
[36]Prior to Mr Hodkin's suspension and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings leading to his dismissal, A was a resident child at Alexandra Road.  With the consent of ACC he took A to Scarborough for a holiday accompanied by ML.  Mr Hodkin said his application to foster care arose from his desire to foster A.[37]Mr Usman Choudhury, a member of Alexandra Road staff was on shift on 27 February 2005 when he received a telephone call from a male caller whose voice he did not recognise stating that a bag was to be left at the front door of the home.[38]An incident report from Alexandra Road dated 27 February 2005 records that Mr Choudhury, the night team member stated that:
"Mr Hodkin's nephew dropped off two bags at the door last night and rang the unit later to inform them of this."
It further records:
"NI and FA (Team members) found this to be strange and checked the contents of the bag.  In several pockets the phone numbers of Mr N Hodkin and his nephew were found.  The telephone numbers of Mr N Hodkin were also found on the back of some Mr Bean magazines and on the back of some photographs.  A mobile phone was also in the bag, when the battery was removed Mr N Hodkin's telephone number was found in the battery compartment.  A's belongings were put away into the staff sleep in and management was informed."
[39]Mr Choudhury looked into the bag and found items of clothing, two mobile phones, a laminated photograph with a name and phone number on the back, some comics with a phone number inside one of them, phone numbers in the pocket of jeans.  Later it was found that the number noted inside the battery compartment of a mobile phone.  It was clear to Alexandra Road staff that someone wished to contact A via the phone number and that this formed a contact either direct or indirect by Mr Hodkin.[40]ML said that he had taken the bag for A as Mr Hodkin wanted him to have items of clothing but he was not allowed to approach the home.  Mr Choudhury found calling cards on a number of occasions in various parts of the property; the yard, gardens and behind the shed.  These seemed to relate directly or indirectly to Mr Hodkin.  These incidents followed a chance meeting between A and ML at a local shop when   A had been told Mr Hodkin was no longer at the home because he was sick.  Mr Hodkin stated he did not ask ML to take the bag; he had prepared it to be sent to ACC's Head Office but ML on his own initiative took it to Alexandra Road.  At this time A was around thirteen years old.[41]Mr Choudhury described A; whilst generally he behaved well, there were occasions when he had difficulty managing his emotions with verbal outbursts, physical aggression and bullying.  He was not aware of A being sexually abused or involved in sexual abuse of anyone else.  He detailed behaviour management strategies in place based on rewards and sanction.  He considered A craved attention.  From his subsequent training he recognised that the incidents that took place could be considered "grooming behaviour" and explained they included elements of befriending and building a relationship with a child stating, the activity was exclusive to one child and outside the boundaries of good practice and ACC's Code of Conduct.[42]Mr Ali Raza Salwar was at the time Regional Homes Manager of ACC he is now a Regional Director.  He met Mr Hodkin during the brief period when Mr Salwar worked at Birch House and Mr Hodkin brought children from Alexandra House.  He concluded that Mr Hodkin and K had left their contact numbers.  Mr Salwar referred to Code of Conduct produced for the home printed in 2004 but which he said was similar to previous codes; he said staff would be aware of its contents and that leaving contact numbers, for instance in the battery compartment of the phone is "not the done thing."  The incidents were discussed with social workers, line managers, Police and ultimately the safeguarding board.  He was not aware whether A's mother was informed.[43]Miss Susan Holden, Social Worker and Manager of Rugby's Children's Leaving Care Services is A's Social Worker.  She said that A's full care order lapsed when he became eighteen.  She commented on A's family circumstances and the relationship between him and his mother who she described as "incapable of parenting, both in relation to his welfare and care and taking decisions for him."  Miss Holden mentioned A's wider family including his grandfather who has several properties, one of which is in Southampton.[44]Miss Holden was not aware of the extent of his contact with Mr Hodkin but understood this continued after Mr Hodkin left Alexandra Road.  Originally A had been told Mr Hodkin was no longer at the home because of sickness.  She had concerns about Mr Hodkin's contact with A particularly his gifts.  She was aware that Mr Hodkin was barred from having contact with A but did not know the reasons for his suspension by ACC.  She stated that Rugby Children's Services would not have agreed to A's removal from his mother's care by Mr Hodkin and that Mr Hodkin would have known that his actions would have been without their agreement and contrary to A's care order.  A request on 5 October 2005 by ML for contact with A made in writing to A's Social Worker was also refused.[45]Rugby Social Services contacted Greater Manchester Police to express their concerns.  After further correspondence Greater Manchester Police on sent warning notices to both Mr Hodkin and ML on 23 January 2006.  The notice served upon Mr Hodkin states:  "Oldham police are committed to protecting the local community, especially those who are vulnerable.  In line with this obligation I write to advise you that the following named children, all of whom are under 16 years of age do not have permission to associate with males who are aged 18 or over.  Child A.  We have received information or intelligence that you have previously associated with one or more of these children.  Should you associate with any of these or any other unrelated children you are at risk of charges of abduction being brought in addition to any other offences disclosed.  It is prudent to remain vigilant to this issue should any unrelated children seek your company.  Detective Chief Inspector Giles.         Mr Hodkin stated he had no knowledge of this notice.[46]In September 2006 with the consent of Rugby Social Services and ACC, A travelled to Southampton to attend a family gathering.  He was to stay at his grandfather's house in Southampton but failed to return to Alexandra Road as agreed. Miss Holden said that Rugby Social Services became aware that A was not at his grandfather's house but with his mother at a women's refuge in Marlborough, Wiltshire.  As they did not consider this suitable, they maintained contact with the refuge to arrange A's return and for his immediate care needs.  They felt it inappropriate to force him to return but visited to persuade him to do so.[47]On 20 October 2006 Rugby Social Services were contacted by Marlborough refuge staff to advise that A had been seen with a man called Kevin who answered Mr Hodkin's description.  A had told staff he was going back to Manchester to his foster carer. Rugby Social Services contacted Wiltshire Police who found A and Mr Hodkin at a Travelodge Motel.  A was told to return to his mother in Wiltshire.  Mr Hodkin was arrested for suspected child abduction.[48]PC Janette Challes interviewed Mr Hodkin on 21 October 2006 when he confirmed that:
"A and himself had stayed overnight in a Travelodge in Swindon."
He told the arresting officer that he was:
"In possession of a letter signed by A's mother stating that A had been returned to her care and that she was allowing A to go with Hodkin…………"
PC Challes gave further details of her investigation.[49]Whilst Mr Hodkin was given a chance to explain the circumstances in the interview, PC Challes does not consider he was truthful and is of the opinion that his relationship with A is inappropriate.  She gave details of police intelligence available to her at the time and contact with Rugby Social Services and Alexandra Road.  She considers the consent form drafted by Mr Hodkin for A's mother to be suspicious forward planning.[50]The document Mr Hodkin produced purporting to be A's mother's signed permission was entitled:
"Parental Consent & Permission" and stated: "
Master A has recently been returned to my care and control by the After Care Department of Rugby Social Services.  Ms Betty Lindsay has decided and agreed that A can return to my care and this is his stated wish.  As his mother I, M give my permission and consent to A residing with and being in the company of Neil Hodkin and ML at ……….. and …….. I understand that AE will keep in regular telephone contact with me and will be returned to my care upon request."  This was signed and dated 19 October 2006.[51]Miss Holden emphasised her alarm over the written authority Mr Hodkin had obtained from A's mother.  She expressed concern about the level of planning and forethought involved.  She said that similar arrangement were made to authorise an adult's travel with a child in care and considers this may have been the purpose of Mr Hodkin's planning to apparently legitimise his actions.  Mr Hodkin stated he saw nothing wrong with the authority, it would have assisted him obtaining medical or other care for A should the need arise.  He said such letters were often used in similar circumstances.[52]Miss Holden said that A wanted to be fostered by Mr Hodkin but had been told when he first asked that this could not happen.  Miss Holden said that during A's absence in Southampton and Wiltshire his place at Alexandra Road had been kept open and he ultimately returned.  A felt that Mr Hodkin was the answer to his needs and said that from conversations during the last two years he saw Mr Hodkin "As a route to all things good."  A now resides with Mr Hodkin and seems happy and settled and has made progress, for example in areas of healthcare; he now wears his glasses.  She considers A continues to have a "mythical" view of his future with Mr Hodkin and has always been guarded in what he said about him.[53]A advised his intention to live at Mr Hodkin's home when he became eighteen.  This was reviewed in a multi-agency meeting and although Miss Holden stated she did not sanction this, A was an adult and had made his choice; there was little her Service felt they could do about it and on balance there were advantages.  Mr Hodkin's listing on the Protection Lists was not considered a difficulty by the multi-agency meeting. She said she was not in a position to comment on the risks.  A has a pathway plan and she continues to speak to him every three weeks and see him quarterly.  The plan is reviewed every six months.  Mr Hodkin has facilitated certain elements of the plan and has a significant role in supporting many of its aims.  She understood that A is an assured tenant at Mr Hodkin's home although she was not clear about the nature of the accommodation.[54]Miss Holden was not aware of the events that led to Mr Hodkin's suspension and has not seen the enhanced disclosure but she knew about the police warning relating to contact with young persons although she understood it was not in relation to a child protection issue. The police service was invited to A's multi-agency meeting prior to his eighteenth birthday.  Miss Holden stated she did not consider A would now qualify within her understanding as a vulnerable adult.  Whilst she would have liked input from Adult Services she did not feel he met their remit.  She considers that if A was not resident with Mr Hodkin he would require twenty-four hour supported accommodation because of his lack of independent living skills, lack of literacy, inability to manage money and general need for support.[55]Miss Holden stated that A's mother is aware of his general progress but as she cannot retain information, she was not included in contemporaneous discussions relating to Mr Hodkin's contact with A.  She may have been aware that a member of Alexandra Road staff had been suspended and subsequent concerns about his contact with A.[56]A described Mr Hodkin at the hearing as a 'diamond.'  He said he would have ended up in jail if he had not ended up with him and emphatically denied that anything untoward had ever taken place with Mr Hodkin or ML.  He said he could not recollect earlier incidents such as clothing being left for him at Alexandra Road.[57]Mr Abassi referred to A's visit to the home when he had just become eighteen.  It was reported to him that A arrived in a new Ford Fiesta and holding a new mobile phone.  He told them that he did not have a licence and was living with Mr Hodkin.  Mr Abassi was concerned because in his opinion A continued to be vulnerable as an adult.  He contacted the Local Authority and the Independent Safeguarding Authority and asked whether leaving care accommodation checks had taken place.  He again discussed this with the Local Authority and Manchester Local Authority's designated office. He remains concerned about the suitability of A's accommodation and wellbeing.[58]Mr Hodkin, responding to comments by DCI Tonge that he had vehicles, equipment and play equipment which would impress youths and young persons stated that he began a security business specialising in surveillance and response equipment.  His car has been equipped as a demonstration car with concealed flashing lights and other fittings.  Similarly, other items commented upon by DCI Tonge and DC Challes relate to that business.  He gave details of the business website.     Miss Sheehan[59]Following a direction of the Tribunal Miss Valerie Sheehan interviewed Mr Hodkin in June/July 2009.  She was given relevant documentation.  Her report is lengthy and includes written comments and corrections following query by Mr Hodkin.  The report contains details of the interview arrangements.[60]In response to Mr Barnes' question, Miss Sheehan outlined her methodology which took into account established research.  She described her background and experience as a senior psychotherapist working mainly with adults and young persons relating to involvement in sexual abuse.  She gave details of the policies of her organisation in relation to release of tapes and transcripts. She explained that her organisation endeavours to be transparent and responsive in its assessments.  In response to queries raised on behalf of Mr Hodkin she made amendments to her report.  Whilst some errors may remain in what is a lengthy document, she does not consider them material. Copies of the original report were within the Tribunal's bundle and the amended report was available at the hearing.[61]Miss Sheehan's conclusion in response to the letter of instruction included:
"I believe Mr Hodkin's behaviour towards ML and A to have been inappropriate and seems to have the hallmarks of someone with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children: I believe that in the light of his apparent inappropriate behaviour with ML and A Mr Hodkin would seem to present a risk of harm to other children and/or vulnerable adults should he be permitted to work with them: Mr Hodkin appears to have attitudes and beliefs in respect of his relationships with ML and A that would raise concerns as to his overall beliefs and attitudes towards children and child protection."
Miss Sheehan included comments on Mr Hodkin's honesty and stated:
"His version of events have changed in a manner which suggests he is prepared to adapt his account and twist the truth to strengthen his position."
She gave examples and stated her view that:
"Mr Hodkin's nebulous and often convoluted accounts were an instinctive defence mechanism."
[62]At the hearing Miss Sheehan explained aspects of her conclusions and confirmed that she continued to believe that Mr Hodkin's involvement with children and vulnerable adults gives rise to a risk of harm.  She gave reasons why she did not consider continued residence of ML and A at Mr Hodkin's home inconsistent with her conclusion relating to risk.  She reflected on the balance of power in the relationships at Mr Hodkin's home.  She said that whilst she could not definitely conclude that Mr Hodkin's contact involved sexual harm, there are Indications in his behaviour that that is a possibility.  His established behaviour will have caused harm to the children concerned.  She pointed to inconsistencies in Mr Hodkin's description of evens, for example, the claimed involvement of child K in the taping and hand tying incident.  She discussed implications of actions such as obtaining the signature to a form by AE's mother.[63]Miss Sheehan highlighted Mr Hodkin's obsessive compulsive behaviour and the coincidence of such behaviour with grooming behaviour.  She drew attention to aspects such as power, control, placing under command, projecting behaviour and controlling and unequal relationships.[64]Miss Olley's closing submissions on behalf of the Secretary of State drew attention to comments in Miss Sheehan's report: ·       Concerning actions may not have been a starting point, but rather the detection point of the behaviour in question ·       It is not unusual for children not to disclose sexual abuse and/or inappropriate behaviour; few victims ever report child sexual abuse and the rate may be as low as 3% ·       A child may not have been aware/understood inappropriate sexual behaviour and/or risk of harm; they are often not able to recognise where the boundary lies between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour ·       An offender may keep their inappropriate/abusive interaction with a child at a level and manner that makes it difficult for the child to determine if something is wrong or not, and such behaviour can serve to make disclosure unlikely, risk of harm is difficult to establish and may help the perpetrator to feel better about themselves as their actions can be plausibly explained ·       Many survivors of sexual abuse continue to be entrapped in the abusive relationship long after the sexual abuse has stopped ·       A significant number of those with a sexual arousal to children do not appear to know how to connect with adults and alleviate their loneliness through children ·       A sense of entitlement may be a determining factor in an individual’s choice to be sexual towards a child ·       There are two stages to befriending a potential child victim: first getting to know their interests and being helpful, secondly cultivating a ‘special’ (and exclusive) friendship by bestowing a variety of inducements ·       It is not unusual for victims of inappropriate behaviour/sexual abuse to experience guilt and self blame; children can reinterpret uncomfortable and/or confusing experiences in a way that puts a more manageable construction on the behaviour ·       It is not a simple process to acknowledge that an individual has acted inappropriately/been sexually abusive and to detach from such a situation; typically, grooming and deception will have accompanied the relationship and the effect of that manipulation is designed to have a strong and lasting impact, which does not evaporate with disclosure and is even less likely to dissipate when there are unsubstantiated allegations and room for counter arguments ·       Those with an unhealthy interest in children can capitalise on an already established behaviour on the part of a child as a means of pursuing their own agenda ·       Photographs and/or video of children is typically used by the perpetrator at a later stage to enhance masturbatory fantasy ·       In certain instances when someone has targeted, groomed and possibly been sexually inappropriate/abusive towards a child, the child can develop behavioural problems and/or existing ones can increase ·       Those with a sexual interest in children will often seek to divide a family and encourage the child to perceive themselves as marginalised and slighted within the family unit, so that the offender can then fill a void in a child’s life ·       Someone with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children may have more than one motivating factor in their behaviour; it can also be difficult for the individual in question to acknowledge and separate out an underlying sexual motivation from a more obvious altruistic incentive and it can be easier to focus on the seemingly caring motivation as this allows the individual to feel better about themselves and castigate others ·       The use of threats in regard to hurting a child’s family/parents is recognised as a strategy used by those with an inappropriate/sexual interest ·       It is common for some child sex offenders to manipulate children to engage other children in the abuse process ·       Those with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children will often groom more than one child at a time ·       Using one child to groom another is an effective means of allaying suspicion from oneself and can disarm potential victims ·       Sex offenders appear to single out and target children and families with obvious vulnerabilities ·       Individuals with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children are known to target children in situations where they have absent parents; this means they have no need to groom the parents and they can become the child’s friend more easily and have greater freedom to arrange time to be alone with the child ·       Child sex offenders are frequently charming, very helpful to the parents of children they wish to molest; this often engenders a trust and promotes them to an ‘insider’ status ·       Those with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children also groom those who act as the gatekeepers of access including criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no risk to children ·       Risk assessments look at general patterns of behaviour as well as risk specific ones; one of the things that can be deemed significant in a risk assessment is the extent to which an individual is being honest ·       It is possible that a child is likely to see someone who [impersonates police officers and drives around with an adapted car] as above the law and in turn powerful and unassailable, further that a child in that position would not have confidence that any disclosure of inappropriate behaviour towards them would result in protective action on the part of the relevant agencies if they considered the perpetrator to have demonstrated that he was untouchable in this regard ·       Those intent upon going on to develop their sexual fantasy about children or engage in sexually abusive behaviour need to find some way around this guilt and/or fear block and achieve this through a process of mental gymnastics whereby they manipulate their perceptions to give themselves permission to engage in behaviour they know is unacceptable ·       Often those with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children will create a dynamic whereby they can perceive the child to be pursuing them, and this in turn allows the individual to believe the distortion that it is the child who is controlling the situation and seeking them out ·       In situations where someone with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children has sought to make that relationship an exclusive one it can be very difficult for the child to recognise where, if at all, targeting and grooming has occurred ·       If a child has lied or colluded with the individual, inadvertently or otherwise disclosure can become even more difficult, particularly if they feel they have burnt their bridges and/or been abandoned by protective others ·       Those with a sexual interest in children will often create a persona that will impress possible protective adults and lead them to believe that the individual is beyond reproach ·       It is not unusual for those with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children to engage in behaviour that is not directly related to children but that will serve as a means of self-publication as to their dedication and selflessness and such behaviour can make it difficult for protective adults to challenge any concerning behaviour if someone has established themselves as an ideal member of staff ·       Those with an inappropriate/sexual interest in children can make themselves indispensable, too good to be true and will freely undertake jobs others do not want to do ·       Play fighting is typically used by those with a sexual interest in children as a means of facilitating touching for sexual gratification and as a way to normalise physical contact with children ·       The process of being imprecise can in itself be a tool for facilitating deception in that it allows for the individual to refine their account where necessary and adjust the emphasis so as to create the impression that they have not actually changed their story   Submissions:[65]Miss Olley's closing submissions stated that the Secretary of State relied on misconduct which placed a child at risk of harm: §        Failure to inform ACC of previous police concern and warnings §        Taking A  from Southampton §        Unauthorised contact with A  whilst suspended §        Matters such as use of adapted vehicles[66]Miss Olley highlighted Miss Sheehan's opinions contained within her report.  In particular paragraph 261:
“Mr. Hodkin’s thinking appears illogical and inconsistent at times. For example in regard to receiving phone calls from A, Mr. Hodkin explained that, the terms of the letter of suspension and the law, did not prohibit him from contact with the boy. However, he also suggested that he knew it was wrong and so was trying to dissuade A from telephoning him. Such contradictory thinking is unhelpful in terms of child protection and Mr. Hodkin appears to view himself as a victim of a child’s persistence. I am inclined to believe that Mr. Hodkin is engaging in post hoc justifications, having engaged in the behaviour he is seeking to validate his actions and present himself in a blameless light. He appears to struggle to be discerning in regard of his own behaviour and to have chosen to meet his needs rather than acting in a way that was best for A. Such behaviour has the hallmarks of someone who has an inappropriate/sexual interest in children and it suggests that Mr. Hodkin has the ability to overcome internal inhibitors to the detriment of child protection. While this does not mean he will inevitable sexually molest children it does indicate that, in common with people who do sexually abuse children Mr. Hodkin has the ability to overcome external and internal factors that impede his access to children.”
[67]Miss Olley submitted:
"It is submitted that a great many, indeed if not all, of Ms. Sheehan’s observations have in fact been borne out during the course of the oral evidence heard in this case. Ms. Sheehan also stated in her oral evidence that her concerns also translated across to the potential for the Appellant to work with vulnerable adults, and pointed out that a vulnerable adult may have a much younger mental age."
[68]Mr Barnes' closing submissions on behalf of Mr Hodkin included a review of the issues, comments upon the standard of proof and evidence before the Tribunal.  In reference to harm, he stated:
"Defining harm and risk.  There are two ways of measuring risk and harm.  The first is by examining the process of concern qualitatively.  The second is to look at the assessed outcome when where such risks or possible harm is identified.  In other words to say that when there was suspicion of harm did the subsequent action taken confirm this?  If Mr Hodkin was to be judged by process considerations he would be exposed as a significant risk.  If he were to be judged by outcomes model he would be revealed as little or no risk."
[69]Mr Barnes, on behalf of Mr Hodkin submitted:
"Taken as a whole I think considerable caution is required in relying on Ms Sheehan's hypothesis, based, as it is, on theoretical constructs.  Her approach throughout has been a mixture of the 'no smoke without fire' and the 'jigsaw puzzle approach.'  She has latched on to suspicions and has tried to link patterns of behaviour which may be present in those who have a sexual interest in children but are also present in those who do not.  It is one thing to put the pieces of a jigsaw together but quite a different thing to change the picture revealed."
[70]Mr Barnes' concluded:
"I say three things:   a.       The first I must attribute to Mr Justice Eady: 'It is so easy to derive from a series of unsatisfactory accusation, if there are enough of them, an accusation which at least appears satisfactory.  It is easy to collect from a mass of ingredients, not one of which is sufficient, the totality which will appear to contain what is missing.' b.       What has characterised this case is a series of allegations of alleged sexual motivated behaviour which, over time and by different agencies working in partnership with each other, have ratcheted up to the point that they no longer can see the wood for trees.  Ironically it is they who are in denial – they cannot accept what the evidence shows that Mr Hodkin has never caused any child any significant harm nor has he ever sexually assaulted them or behaved towards them in as sexual way and in the final analysis, Ms Sheehan's assessment, including her conclusions, are belief driven not evidence driven. c.       In my view and on this basis I say the Secretary of State has not demonstrated on any balance of probability that Mr Hodkin is guilty of misconduct and that as a result of this he has not harmed or place at risk of harm a child or vulnerable adult?  I ask that you find in his favour."
The Law[71]The appeals are made under Rule 20 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (the Rules) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 and Section 86 of the Care Standards Act 2000.[72]Paragraph 2(1) of the Rules states that:
"The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly."
Paragraph 2(2) "Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes ………..(c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings."[73]Under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 the Secretary of State must 'keep a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children.  By Section 4(1) an individual who is included in the list may appeal to the Tribunal against the decision to include him in the list.[74]By Section 4(3) if "the Tribunal is not satisfied of either of the following, namely –(a) that the individual was guilty of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his duties) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm, and(b) that the individual is unsuitable to work with children, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal and direct his removal from the list; otherwise it shall dismiss the appeal …"[75]In the case of Angella Mairs [2004] 269.PC the Tribunal held as follows in relation to the issue of unsuitability to work with children (paragraph 111):
“Unsuitability to work with children   Unsuitability must be judged by the Tribunal at the date of the hearing. The judgment will involve consideration of the character, disposition, capacity and ability of the individual concerned, including his or her ability to act properly in potentially difficult or frustrating circumstances. The judgment will inevitably be, at least in part, by way of deduction from past performance, including (but not limited to) the nature and extent of the misconduct, admitted or proved in the course of the proceedings, which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm.   The Tribunal may have regard to: (a)      the number of the incidents constituting the misconduct established for the purposes of section 4(3)(a) of the Act; (b)      the gravity of that misconduct; (c)      the time that has elapsed since that misconduct; (d)      the timing and degree of recognition by the applicant that the conduct constituted misconduct and that it had the potential to harm  a child; (e)      the steps taken by the applicant to minimise the possibility of there being a recurrence of that or like misconduct; and (f)       extenuating circumstances surrounding the misconduct.   This should not be regarded as an exclusive list.  The Tribunal may also have regard to other admitted, undisputed or proved past conduct of the applicant, whether good or bad.”
[76]The purpose of the listing scheme is to protect children from those who are employed to work with them and to maintain public confidence in the care provided to children.  Listing under the scheme involves a difficult balancing exercise between the safety of children and the rights of individuals to have their livelihoods and reputations safeguarded (see Lady Justice Hale in R v The Secretary of State for Health ex parte C (2000) EWCA 49).  We consider that this exercise is equally applicable for vulnerable adults.[77]In these appeals the decision to place Mr Hodkin on the POVA List was as a result of his inclusion in the POCA List.  Misconduct relating to a child for the purposes of the POCA List satisfies the requirement of misconduct relating to a vulnerable adult.  However, the issue of unsuitability to work with vulnerable adults falls to be considered separately.[78]The burden of proof is upon the Secretary of State.  The standard of proof is the civil standard upon a balance of probabilities.[79]We consider that the Appellant’s suitability relates to the present and the Appellant's current suitability at the date of the hearing is to be determined by the Tribunal.     Conclusions:[80]There is little if any dispute that the individual incidents relied upon by the Secretary of State took place.  Issues arise from the detail and interpretation of those events and whether taking into account the explanation given by Mr Hodkin they establish that misconduct has taken place.   Cable tie incident / hand tying incident[81]It is first necessary for us to conclude whether or not ML's statements to the police on 22 August and 25 September 2000 can be relied upon.  ML's subsequent statement on 10 January 2006 states they should be disregarded and the information is inaccurate and misleading.  We note DCI Tonge's explanation why original documents were not available and accept from his evidence that the original statements would have been signed and initialled at the time by ML's adoptive father.[82]The contents of ML's statements fit with elements of observed and unchallenged facts and contain significant detail.  They do not appear to us as "concoction of information" to cast the worst light on otherwise explicable events either by police or ML's adoptive father as was put on behalf of Mr Hodkin.  The statements are cogent, consistent and we conclude them reliable.  We find that they are persuasive proof of the facts contained within them.  They do not contain extreme or outlandish explanations and on a balance of probabilities to a high standard, are accurate.  Whilst evidence was given that indicates the existence of statements and a video relating to a previous incident, this was insufficient evidence for us to make a finding.[83]Mr Hodkin acknowledged that this incident took place although he disputed some details.  He said he was not initially involved but joined in later and suggested egg and flouring.  ML and Mr Hodkin mentioned the presence of K and horseplay that led to the incident.  K was not mentioned to the police at the time nor did the police observe or see him.  We consider that in circumstances where police were involved, a complete explanation would have been made at the time and this cast doubt on the credibility of the subsequent explanation given by Mr Hodkin and ML.  We also doubt whether an adult would not have known been aware of such a boisterous activity within his own home and find on balance of probabilities K was neither present nor involved.  His supporting evidence was not produced at the hearing.  We conclude that ML's hands were tied by Mr Hodkin who was involved in the incident as described in ML's original statements.  We are reinforced in this view by the obvious presence of the articles used in this incident in Mr Hodkin's living room.[84]Following our conclusion that the events took place as detailed in the police report and taking into account ML's age at the time, we find that Mr Hodkin was guilty of was misconduct which patently placed a child at risk of harm demonstrated by the fact that the child in question ran from the home, at night, in a state of undress.   Scarborough[85]There is no issue that Mr Hodkin and ML were in Scarborough at the same time.  ML now disputes the description of events in his statement.  Taking into account our conclusions relating the voracity of ML's earlier statements we do not accept Mr Hodkin's explanation that ML travelled to Scarborough without his participation in the arrangements.  We find his involvement premeditated and bearing in mind as was acknowledged by Mr Hodkin that he did not have permission to take ML to Scarborough; we conclude this was misconduct.[86]We consider the arrangements deceptive and deliberate and conclude that this was misconduct which caused ML harm and placed him at risk, both in respect of the deceptive arrangements and in the physical circumstances not least in his accommodation in a locked garage.   Failure to disclose police concern and warnings[87]It was necessary to consider whether Mr Hodkin was aware of the Harassment Notice, Police Protection Order and police reports relating to earlier incidents.  Mr Hodkin stated that he was not served with either the Harassment Notice or the Police Protection Order nor did he consider the previous incidents, which did not lead to criminal charges as relevant.[88]We have noted the questions on the ACC application form and that Mr Hodkin was would necessarily have been aware of both the principle and considerations for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.  Notwithstanding the rationalisation Mr Hodkin might himself have given to the events, we find he failed to disclose or volunteer relevant information as requested by his deliberate and considered omission which was not a justifiable response to the particular question or accidental oversight.  We conclude that this was misconduct and because of the nature and purpose of the requirement, potentially placed a child at risk of harm.   Contact with A whilst suspended[89]We have considered the terms of Mr Hodkin's letter of suspension.  We are satisfied that whilst the terms of the letter were not detailed its meaning was clear and well within Mr Hodkin's understanding.  We accept that ACC maintained a Code of Conduct and Mr Hodkin, from his induction and continued employment at ACC, would have known about it.  We accept from Mr Abbasi and Mr Choudhury's evidence that earlier versions of the Code contained guidelines for the conduct of employees and contact with residents.  On balance we are satisfied Mr Hodkin knew he should not have contact with A or Alexandra Road staff after his suspension and that leaving gifts and clothing in a bag for A and distribution of calling cards with mobile phone numbers was an attempt to circumvent this restriction.  We find it extremely improbable that this was ML's independent activity.  We conclude Mr Hodkin planned this attempt to enable contact with A and this was misconduct which, in the circumstances, involved a child in a breach of home rules amounting to a breach of trust and required conduct which placed a child at risk of harm.   Southampton[90]Mr Hodkin stated that A's mother delegated parental responsibility to him.  As A had not been returned to her care she did not have authority to delegate.  Mr Hodkin went to considerable lengths in planning, preparation and travel to engage with A and remove him from an initially authorised situation at the time after the formal police warning of January[2006]We do not doubt DCI Tonge's and PC Challes' evidence and their recollection of events which is consistent with the documents provided.  We find Mr Hodkin was the man called "Kevin" mentioned and that he was present in the area at the time and as he acknowledged.  Mr Hodkin's arrangements were deliberate and purposeful steps to circumvent what he knew was unauthorised and prohibited contact.  This contact involved an overnight stay in a hotel and A's displacement from an address known and authorised by Alexandra Road to a women's refuge with his mother.  We find that Mr Hodkin's activities amount to serious misconduct with significant consequences for A; disruption, involvement in furtive and deceptive arrangements and inappropriate accommodation.  Taking into account the balance of power in A's relationship with Mr Hodkin and his vulnerability, this caused him harm and placed him at further risk of harm.[91]Although not relied upon by the Secretary of State in final submissions, Mr Barnes makes submissions regarding the altercation between ML and Mr Hodkin in June 2002.  We do not find this incident significant and place no reliance upon it.         Harm[92]Mr Barnes submissions about the nature of harm indicate that it must be significant and comments on aspects relevant to this appeal.  We find there is no direct evidence of sexual contact although in line with Miss Sheehan's observations, we are satisfied that Mr Hodkin's involvement in the described events demonstrates a particular and consuming interest in ML and A both of whom as young adults have resided at his home.[93]We consider these incidents indicate Mr Hodkin's controlling attitude, calculated exploitation of an imbalance of power and manipulation of those who were vulnerable young people.  Taking into account Miss Sheehan's conclusions we find that Mr Hodkin's conduct was exploitative and involved a series of grooming behaviours leading us to the conclusion that he had an inappropriate sexual interest in children.  His involvement with A and ML has continued into young adulthood.  Our unanimous conclusion is that Mr Hodkin is unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults and should remain on the POCA and POVA lists.   Order[94]Mr Hodkin's appeal is dismissed.     Mr Laurence Bennett (Tribunal Judge) Ms Marilyn Adolphe (Specialist Member) Ms Pat McLoughlin (Specialist Member)     Date:  24 February 2010