42 - Bury College Failed to Make DBS Referral After Accusing Teacher of Abuse.

A tribunal case involving Bury College has exposed what may be one of the most troubling contradictions possible within an educational safeguarding process.

Throughout disciplinary proceedings, internal investigations, safeguarding documentation and tribunal submissions, the college repeatedly framed a teacher’s conduct as serious misconduct involving a disabled student.

The language used was not minor.

The college’s own documents referred to:

• a student with a “recognised learning disability”,
• “harm thresholds”,
• safeguarding procedures,
• LADO involvement,
• and even stated that the conduct “could be classed as a hate crime.”

The teacher was suspended, investigated, and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct.

Yet despite all of this, there has been no referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

That fact creates an extraordinary contradiction.

Because either:

• the college genuinely believed a teacher posed a safeguarding risk to vulnerable students and failed to fulfil its safeguarding duties by making a DBS referral,

or:

• the college did not genuinely believe such a safeguarding risk existed, meaning the safeguarding rhetoric and serious allegations used throughout the disciplinary and tribunal process were knowingly exaggerated far beyond the level of risk the college itself actually believed existed.

Both possibilities are deeply serious.

 

The College’s Own Policies Make the Contradiction Worse

The contradiction becomes even more severe when the college’s own safeguarding documents are examined.

Bury College’s “Managing Allegations of Abuse” policy states it applies where a member of staff:

• “has harmed a child or adult at risk,”
• “may have harmed a child,”
• or behaved in a way indicating unsuitability to work with children.

The same policy explicitly states that the Director of HR is responsible for:

“making referrals to the DBS”

The college’s safeguarding policy further states that the institution must:

“Develop and implement procedures for identifying and reporting cases or suspected cases of abuse and make appropriate referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service.”

Its own suspension guidance goes even further:

“If the College has concerns that an individual has caused harm or poses future risk of harm to children, young people or vulnerable groups then the College has a legal responsibility to complete a DBS referral form.”

This was not hidden policy language buried deep within technical documents.

It was the college’s own stated safeguarding framework.

 

The Allegations Were Advanced Aggressively

The college’s tribunal defence stated:

“the Claimant had in fact called a student with a recognised learning disability a ‘retard’”; this accusation was despite there being no supporting evidence that the Claimant had called anyone the word

and further alleged repeated use:

“using this word on multiple occasions… as a form of pseudo-behavioural management”, an accusation which stemmed from the disputed notes of a flawed investigation rather than independently established evidence. The allegation was never formally verified with the claimant, and there was no clear corroboration from independent witnesses confirming repeated direct use of the word towards any student.

Internally, the matter was escalated through safeguarding channels and referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

The LADO found that the harm threshold had not been met, but the college disregarded that finding in order to advance their case aggressively against the Claimant.

The appeal process even suggested the conduct:

“could be classed as a hate crime.”

This was therefore not treated merely as inappropriate language or poor judgement.

The college itself elevated the issue into the realm of:

• safeguarding,
• discrimination,
• potential harm,
• and institutional risk management.

 

Yet The Colleges Own Documents Also Reveal Internal Doubt

At the same time, the documents contain material pointing in the opposite direction.

The LADO documentation records that the student allegedly referred to by the word stated:

“it was joke”

An internal email from Assistant Principal Sarah Walton states:

“Dad said he was not concerned about this as he felt the context was banter.”

The tribunal itself did not make a finding that abuse of a disabled student had occurred.

Instead, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds.

That distinction matters enormously.

Because despite the safeguarding framing repeatedly used by the college, there appears to have been no evidence of the institution following through with the very safeguarding mechanism its own policies describe as a legal responsibility where harm or future risk exists.

 

The Two Possible Conclusions

The contradiction ultimately narrows into two possible explanations.

Either the College Truly Believed Harm or Risk Existed

If Bury College genuinely believed that a teacher had harmed or posed a future safeguarding risk to vulnerable students, then the absence of a DBS referral raises serious questions about whether the college failed in its safeguarding responsibilities.

The DBS system exists specifically to prevent individuals considered a risk from moving unchecked between educational settings.

If the allegations were truly as serious as the college suggested, many will ask:

• Why was the DBS not informed?
• Why was the safeguarding process stopped short of formal barring consideration?
• Why did the college not comply with its own safeguarding obligations?

 

Or the College Did Not Truly Believe the Risk Existed

The alternative possibility may be even more disturbing.

If the college did not genuinely believe the teacher posed a safeguarding threat requiring DBS involvement, then why were safeguarding processes, harm language, hate crime terminology, and allegations involving a disabled student used so aggressively throughout the disciplinary and tribunal process?

That possibility raises deeply uncomfortable questions about:

• exaggeration of allegations,
• proportionality,
• reputational destruction,
• and the weaponisation of safeguarding language within an employment dispute.

Because if an institution publicly advances allegations implying serious safeguarding concerns while privately not acting as though a safeguarding threat genuinely exists, confidence in the integrity of the process itself is inevitably damaged.

 

A Wider Issue Than One Teacher

This case is no longer merely about one dismissal.

It goes to the heart of how safeguarding language is used by educational institutions.

When colleges invoke concepts such as:

• abuse,
• harm,
• hate crime,
• vulnerable students,
• and safeguarding risk,

the public expects:

• consistency,
• evidence,
• procedural fairness,
• and safeguarding action matching the seriousness of the allegations being advanced.

If those things do not align, trust in institutional safeguarding processes is undermined.

And that leaves Bury College facing a question it may struggle to answer:

If the allegations were truly serious enough to justify safeguarding escalation and gross misconduct dismissal, why was there no DBS referral?

And if the college never genuinely believed a safeguarding risk existed, why were allegations of such severity advanced in the first place?

Bury College cannot present a teacher as a safeguarding risk serious enough to destroy a career while apparently not treating that same teacher as a safeguarding risk serious enough to report to the DBS. That contradiction goes directly to the credibility of the college itself.