Bromfield-Rabley v Secretary of State

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was formerly employed as a residential social worker and was dismissed for gross misconduct in July 1998. Following dismissal, the Appellant was referred to and included on the Consultancy Services Index (CSI) on 29th December 1998 due to various misconduct incidents. Subsequently, on 2nd October 2000, the Appellant was included on the Protection of Children Act (PoCA) List pursuant to section 3 of the Protection of Children Act 1999, having previously been on the CSI.

The Appellant applied for removal from the PoCA List on 16th December 2001, but the Secretary of State declined the application by letter dated 1st February 2002, concluding there was no new evidence to warrant removal. The Appellant sought leave to appeal this decision in 2004, but the application was refused by a judge and on reconsideration by a tribunal chairman. The Appellant made a further request for removal in August 2009, to which the Secretary of State responded in September 2009 by outlining the statutory requirements for removal but did not make a removal decision.

In September 2009, the Appellant submitted an appeal form challenging the refusal to remove her name from the PoCA List. The Secretary of State opposed the appeal, applying for it to be refused admission or struck out on grounds of lateness and lack of reasonable prospects of success. The Tribunal issued directions for representations and scheduled a hearing, but the Appellant did not respond or attend. The Tribunal then considered the application to strike out the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s appeal given the statutory ten-year requirement before an application for removal from the PoCA List can be made.
2. Whether the Appellant’s appeal, submitted over seven years late, should be admitted or struck out due to delay and lack of reasonable explanation.
3. Whether the appeal has any reasonable prospects of success based on the statutory criteria for inclusion and removal from the PoCA List.
4. Whether the letter from the Secretary of State dated 4th September 2009 constitutes a decision capable of being appealed to the Tribunal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Secretary of State's Arguments

• The appeal is substantially out of time, submitted over seven years after the relevant decision, with no explanation or request for extension.
• The Appellant was aware of her right to appeal and was not misled or disadvantaged by any administrative error.
• The statutory ten-year period before an application for removal can be considered has not elapsed, as the Appellant’s inclusion on the PoCA List began in October 2000, not from the earlier CSI listing.
• The letter dated 4th September 2009 does not constitute a decision to remove the Appellant’s name and thus is not appealable.
• The appeal has no reasonable prospects of success because the statutory requirements for removal were met at the time of the original decision and no new evidence undermines that.
• The Tribunal should refuse to admit the appeal or strike it out in the interests of fairness and justice under the Tribunal Procedure Rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Keith Marlow v Secretary of State [2004] 423.PC	Discretion to extend time limits for appeal only if it would be unreasonable to comply and unfair not to extend.	Applied to confirm that the Appellant’s delay of over seven years was excessive and no extension should be granted.
David Palmer v Secretary of State [2008] 1292.PC	Test for granting leave to appeal under s.4(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1999.	Referenced as guiding the Tribunal’s consideration of whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.
Philip John Maurice Thomas v Secretary of State [2009] 1474.PT	Application of procedural rules under the 2008 Tribunal Rules.	Accepted that principles from earlier cases remain applicable under the new procedural rules.
Philip Nam v Secretary of State [2009] 1452.PC/1453.PVA	Procedural application of time limits and appeal rights under the 2008 Rules.	Confirmed applicability of prior case law under the current procedural framework.
Decision of Mr Robertson, Tribunal Chairman (September 2004)	Strict approach to late appeals and burden on appellant to justify delay.	Adopted to reject the Appellant’s attempt to re-litigate previously refused appeals and to refuse extension of time.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal first considered whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal given the statutory requirement under section 4B(3) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 that an individual must have been included on the PoCA List for at least ten continuous years before applying for removal. The Appellant’s inclusion began on 2nd October 2000, so an application before 2nd October 2010 is premature and outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal then addressed whether the appeal form submitted in September 2009, challenging the 1st February 2002 decision not to remove the Appellant’s name, should be admitted despite being over seven years late. The Tribunal applied established case law emphasizing a strict regime for time limits, with a heavy burden on the Appellant to provide good reasons for delay. Prior refusals of leave to appeal in 2004 were considered significant, and the Appellant did not provide any new explanation or evidence to justify the delay.

Regarding the letter of 4th September 2009, the Tribunal found it did not constitute a decision to remove the Appellant’s name but merely outlined the statutory framework for removal. Consequently, there was no appealable decision in that letter.

Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success and that the delay was unjustified. The Tribunal exercised its discretion under the procedural rules to strike out the appeal as it was either outside jurisdiction or time-barred with no reasonable prospect of success.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is struck out.

The Tribunal held that:

• The appeal is outside its jurisdiction because the statutory ten-year period for removal applications has not yet elapsed.
• Alternatively, the appeal is struck out for being filed over seven years late without explanation or good reason.
• Alternatively, the appeal is struck out because it has no reasonable prospects of success based on the statutory criteria and prior decisions.
• The letter of 4th September 2009 does not constitute a decision capable of appeal.

The direct effect is that the Appellant remains on the PoCA List and cannot currently seek removal or appeal the prior decision. No new precedent was established; the decision confirms and applies existing legal principles and procedural rules strictly to uphold the statutory scheme’s integrity.