Murderer worked in a school after being barred – what went wrong?
I hope you all have had a good year so far. Spring has definitely sprung and warmer temperatures, longer days and spring flowers are now a reality. I am filling my time with safeguarding training, policy writing and my first safeguarding check up of the year.
Recently a case was brought to my attention which affected both the community/charity sector and schools. It caused a lively discussion amongst my fellow safeguarding professionals, and I thought it would be useful to share our thoughts with you. As much as possible, I will refer to statutory guidance in Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024 (KCSIE 2024) to make my case.
This is how the case was reported in the national news:
‘A convicted murderer spent almost two years working with children after he was barred from doing so, the BBC has learned. Rashid Zaman, 44, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, served 15 years in prison for killing a man who tried to stop him and two others stealing a car in Halifax in 2001.
After his release, he began volunteering with the national charity, St Giles Trust, in 2021, and later became a paid employee who visited schools and young people’s homes. The charity said Zaman, who has not responded to the BBC’s attempts to contact him, did not tell them he had been barred from working with children and that he was dismissed as soon as senior management found out.
Zaman and two other men from Bradford were convicted of stabbing father-of-two Kevin Jackson in the head with a screwdriver, and beating him with a piece of wood near his home after he tried to stop the group from stealing his father-in-law’s car. At the time the judge called the murder “a cowardly and horrific act”.
Zaman was given a life sentence and was released from prison in 2017.’
BBC Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Investigations 4 March 2025
For more information click: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yewk7zen8o
Question 1: Should criminals ever be allowed to work in schools?
Answer: Organisations cannot impose a blanket ban against employing people with a criminal record. Instead, they must risk assess carefully regarding the criminal information they have been supplied regarding the role. Criminal information from candidates should have been requested from at the point of shortlisting, requested from referees (and explored further if there are any concerns), examined at interview, and cross referenced to any DBS certificate provided by the candidate.
‘233. Any information about past disciplinary action or substantiated allegations should be considered in the circumstances of the individual case.’ (KCSIE 2024)
In some cases having a criminal record can be a positively useful experience, as exemplified by the work of the St Giles with schools. Their early intervention programme aimed to prevent young people falling into criminal activity and was purposefully delivered by ex-offenders as part of their reintegration back into society. The only exception are those individuals whose names are included on the barred lists when it comes to regulated activity. When it comes to schools and settings like charities and other organisations that work with children, those who are on the children’s barred list cannot ever work with children in regulated activity, and it is an offence for them to apply for jobs in regulated activity, and for them to be employed in regulated activity.
Question 2: What is regulated activity?
Answer: I am so glad you asked! This is one of the most difficult to explain concepts in safeguarding, and yet it is vital in understanding the logic of checking staff and volunteers. Simply put, regulated activity is regularly teaching, training, instructing, caring for or supervising children, or providing advice or guidance on well-being, or driving a vehicle only for children or regularly working in a limited range of establishments (‘specified places’), with opportunity for contact (which includes all schools) AND the work must be done unsupervised. Regularly is defined by statutory guidance as ‘once a week or more often, or 4 or more days in a 30-day period’ and supervision is defined as: carried out by someone in regulated activity, regular and day to day, and be “reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure the protection of children”. (KCSIE 2024) paragraph 317
So whereas ALL staff directly employed by a school (even admin staff not working directly with children) are deemed in regulated activity, only unsupervised visiting professionals and volunteers working within schools on a regular basis are deemed in regulated activity.
Question 3: Surely as an organisation working with children we should ask for the maximum amount of checking available to us?
Answer: No, the organisation carrying out checks on individuals must ensure their checks be proportionate to the role. It is not legal for employers to carry out barred list checks on staff or volunteers not in regulated activity. In schools, this could apply to visiting professionals, or their own governors, or to volunteers who are supervised:
‘315. … Employers are not legally permitted to request barred list information on a supervised volunteer, as they are not considered to be engaging in regulated activity.’ (KCSIE 2024)
In charities like St Giles, this may include visiting professionals like Zaman who were employed by a charity but who were working in schools, but most probably in a supervised capacity. Supervised visiting professionals working in schools are not in regulated activity, and therefore do not necessitate a barred list check (although an enhanced DBS check without a barred list check, carried out by their employer and communicated to the school, may be appropriate).
Question 4: Could this have been a massive failure of the DBS service to supply barred list check information then to the charity?
Answer: Unlikely. It is unheard of for the DBS to fail to supply employers with the information they request on staff and volunteers. And we know that St Giles, the charity employing Zaman, did check his criminal record, firstly at the point he was employed in 2021, and secondly in March 2023. The first, from 2021, did not say he was barred from working with children so this could have been an Enhanced DBS check without a barred list check because he was working in schools but not in regulated activity (probably because he was being supervised). But the most recent one, issued in March 2023, did include a barred list check that stated that he was barred. This may have taken place because Zaman’s job role may have changed and he was carrying out regulated activity in schools, which meant St Giles was therefore requesting a further barred list check.
Question 5: So was the school to blame for not asking to see the DBS certificate and checking for themselves if he was on the barred list? After all, they would have known he was carrying out regulated activity on their premises?
No. Schools should not be routinely checking DBS certificates of visitors. KCSIE may regard schools asking to see all certificates as disproportionate and contrary to GDPR. Instead of checking the actual DBS certificate of visitor, in most cases a letter of assurance must be sought that assures the schools that checks have been carried out:
‘292. Schools and colleges must obtain written notification from any agency, or third party organisation, that they have carried out the same checks as the school or college would otherwise perform on any individual who will be working at the school or college…
297. Schools and colleges should ensure that any contractor, or any employee of the contractor, who is to work at the school or college, has been subject to the appropriate level of DBS check….
303. Where trainee teachers are fee-funded, it is the responsibility of the initial teacher training provider to carry out the necessary checks. Schools and colleges should obtain written confirmation from the provider that it has carried out all pre appointment checks…
306. Schools and colleges should not request DBS checks or barred list checks, or ask to see existing DBS certificates, for visitors such as children’s relatives or other visitors attending a sports day…
308. For visitors who are there in a professional capacity schools and colleges should check ID and be assured that the visitor has had the appropriate DBS check (or the visitor’s employers have confirmed that their staff have appropriate checks. Schools and colleges should not ask to see the certificate in these circumstances).’ [my emphasis] (KCSIE 2024)
Not asking to see actual certificates is congruent with other guidance on not keeping copies of DBS certificates, the inference being that they may contain sensitive information and are the property of the person they pertain to:
‘283. Copies of DBS certificates and records of criminal information disclosed by the candidate are covered by UK GDPR/DPA 2018 Article 10. To help schools and colleges comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, when a school or college chooses to retain a copy, there should be a valid reason for doing so and it should not be kept for longer than six months…’ (KCSIE 2024)
According to KCSIE, there is only one clear occasion when actual DBS certs of visiting professionals should be scrutinised – that’s if they count as third party supply staff (which includes visitors provided via a third party) and if they are alerted by the employer as actually having information on the certificates:
‘293. Where the agency or organisation has obtained an enhanced DBS certificate before the person is due to begin work at the school or college, which has disclosed any matter or information, or any information was provided to the employment business, the school or college must obtain a copy of the certificate from the agency.’ (KCSIE 2024)
In my experience, schools almost always ask for DBS certificates from any visiting professional that comes through their doors – but this is not what they should be doing, and I think it’s just bad practice that has been allowed to build up over the years. In the case of St Giles, the schools should have been alerted by the charity to Zaman’s DBS check, which did contain relevant information about past convictions, and then they should have asked to see his certificate.
Question 6: So was the charity to blame for not taking note that one of its employees was on the barred list and for sending him to work in schools?
Got it! St Giles said its senior management was not aware of the outcome of the most recent DBS check until December 2024, which meant Zaman was allowed to work in regulated activity – and had contact with 28 children – for nearly 2 years after they had been informed he had been barred from doing so. This is the nub of the case. The charity said it “deeply regret[s] the oversight” but it does run the risk now of losing its funding pending an enquiry by the Charity Commission as not carrying out its legal functions in ensuring that it is not employing individuals on the barred list for children to carry out regulated activity.