This is an act of parliament that was enacted after the government agreed to adopt the recommendations of Bichard Inquiry of 2004. The inquiry had been formed to investigate the murder of two children in 2002. The act of parliament provides for the vetting and barring of employees who will be working and have access to children and people who are vulnerable. This is to protect these two groups from harm and risk that they may go through under their care. The act also cuts across the health and social sector. The act calls for vetting of the nurses. This means that people working in the health sector need to familiarize themselves with their legal duties. This is to protect their patients from abuse and also protect themselves from any form of liability while handling their patients. The Act recognizes two categories of work which includes the regulated activity and the controlled activity. Regulated activity deals with certain settings such as working in schools, taking care of small children, taking care of the sick and provision of medical services, while the controlled activity deals with fewer posts mostly in higher education or health i.e. activities that are outside the regulate activity. The act provides that where an individual works with the regulated group he has to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority. The controlled activity puts an obligation on the employer to make sure that the individuals that they are employing are not barred from undertaking the regulated activity. It is important that before the employer decides to employ an individual, he know the history of the person.
DFES: It stands for Department for Education and Skills. It is a department that was responsible for the system of education and services to children. The department mainly deals with the schools and the learning process of adults as well as children welfare.
Children’s barred list refers to a list which contains names of individuals who are not allowed to work with children by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. It is contained in (section 2(1) (a) of the 2006 Act. The activities an individual is barred from doing include teaching of any form, instructing children and training them unless the teaching is incidental to persons who are not children. It also extends to any form of care given to children.
The following are cases which form precedence in these cases.
Regina v Durham Constabulary & another (appellant) ex parte R (FC) (Respondent) (1194) 18 EHRR 393. This case was heavily relied by Mr. Bowers. The complainants argued that the prosecutors denied them access to the courts to have their rights determined and as such there was a violation of their basic human rights in article 6. The question which begged for answers and which was to be decided was whether article 6(1) was applicable or not. The applicants argued that the investigations were decisive of the article 8 and that the inspectors report determined them as not respecting the procedural guarantee.
Limited time Offer
In the case Balmer-Schafroth v Switzerland (1998) 25 EHRR. 598 ID number (1998) 25 EHRR 598, the court decided that article 6(1) was not used in the determination of the case and thus there was an infringement of human rights. The court sought a link between article 2 and article 8 to see whether article 6(1) would be bought into play. However, the applicants failed to show they were exposed to a danger that was specific and about to happen.
DEUMELAND v GERMANY (A/120): (1986) 8 EHRR 448. The case was primarily on the applicability of article 6(1). It stated that any decision that will be made by the authority be it a favorable decision or not will ultimately affect the individual’s rights.
Home Office (Appellant) v Tariq (Respondent). The appeal was about the compatibility with the European law and Human Rights Convention. It is a case where the applicant may be excluded from some of employment tribunal proceedings on grounds of national security. It involved cases where work permits are withdrawn on the grounds of race, religion, tribe or beliefs. In the case, the Home Office argued that there was no discrimination and that the decision was taken for the safety of national security.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant) v Payne and another (Respondents) UKSC 2011/0007
|Case Name||Case ID.|
|Regina v Durham Constabulary & another(appellant) ex parte R(FC) (Respondent)||
(1194) 18 EHRR 393
|Buchholz v. Germany||(3 E.H.R.R. 597)|
|Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Appellant) v Payne and another (Respondents)||UKSC 2011/0007|
|Berrehab v. The Netherlands.||11 EHRR 322|
|Blackstov V. United Kingdom.||11 EHRR 322|
|Boner V. United Kingdom.||19 EHRR 246|
In conclusion, while arriving at a decision in a case judges have to consider a number of things. Not all times the judges have to agree and in this case some of the judges may make dissenting judgment which means it is an opinion that is totally different from the opinion of the other judges. However, the majority of the judges carry the day and a decision is passed according to their opinion. It is quite fair to expel and suspend those individuals who take advantage of the vulnerable groups and children in the society. This is to safeguard them from possible harm and risks that they may face in the hands of selfish and merciless people. In relation to this harsh punishment should be meted against the perpetrators so that it becomes a warning to them and others with similar intentions. People should understand the need for being royal I order to avoid liability that may arise as a result of their actions.
Related Law essays