Handling concerns that an adult student has a criminal record relating to the harm of a child

This is one of the hardest safeguarding scenarios a club is likely to encounter, and it sits in a genuine gap in the formal safeguarding system. An adult joins your class. At some point, you become aware, through rumour, a parent raising concerns, social media, a community whisper, or a direct disclosure, that this person is alleged to have a criminal record relating to the harm of a child. Children train at your club. They share changing facilities, mat space, water breaks, and walking routes to the car park. You now have a serious concern. You also have very little to go on.

This article sets out how to think about that situation, what you can do, what you cannot do, and how to navigate the conversation with the adult student themselves if it becomes necessary.

Most safeguarding referral routes were built around adults who hold a Position of Trust (PoT). A coach, instructor, volunteer with regular contact, school staff member, sports official, or anyone exercising authority and influence over children sits inside PoT. This also includes any adult within a club but not within a dedicated role, or any other situation in which there may exist a power dynamic. If an allegation is made against a person in PoT, the route is clear: the club's Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) refers to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), and a defined process kicks in.

An ordinary adult student is not in a Position of Trust. They are a participant. They have no authority over the children training alongside them. They have not signed up to enhanced DBS checks, codes of conduct, or supervisory expectations beyond ordinary club membership. This means:

Before doing anything, anchor your thinking in these:

The welfare of children is paramount. Every other consideration sits beneath this. Procedural fairness to the adult matters, but it does not outweigh the safety of the children in your care.

Rumour is not evidence, but it is information. A concern raised by a parent, a member of the public, or a community contact is data. Treat it as something to investigate cautiously, not as fact, and not as nothing.

You are not a court. You will not determine guilt or innocence. You are deciding whether your club can safely accommodate this person, given what you know and what you can reasonably find out.

Document contemporaneously. Every conversation, every piece of information received, every decision and the rationale behind it must be written down at the time, with date, time, who was present, and what was said or decided.

Do not act alone. A concern of this nature is escalated immediately to the DSL or Deputy DSL. If you are the DSL, take advice. There are routes available even when LADO and MASH are not the right fit.

Confidentiality is essential but not absolute. Information is shared only with those who need it to discharge their duties. The adult student is not a topic for general staff discussion or member gossip. Breaches of confidentiality cause real harm and undermine any later process.

The instinct is often either to act immediately (suspending or excluding the person on the basis of rumour) or to wait for something more concrete (and in doing so, leave children in proximity to an unknown risk). Both are wrong.

Within the first 24 to 48 hours of becoming aware of a concern:

LADO may not be the right route, but several others are.

In England and Wales, the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme allows members of the public to ask the police about whether a named person who has contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. The scheme is most commonly used by parents, carers, and guardians, but third parties with a legitimate concern, including a club acting on welfare grounds, can make an enquiry. Police will only disclose information if they assess there is a risk, and only to the person best placed to protect the child. The scheme covers child sexual offences specifically, not all offences against children.

The club's DSL can contact their local police force and request a Sarah's Law application. Even where disclosure is not made, the act of raising the concern is recorded, and police can advise on appropriate next steps.

The non-emergency line is a legitimate route for advice. The DSL can describe the concern, explain the safeguarding context, and ask for guidance. Police may have intelligence they cannot share but can act on. They may also refer the matter internally or signpost to specialist units (for example, the Public Protection Unit in many forces).

The NSPCC helpline is staffed by qualified social workers and is specifically designed for situations where the formal referral routes are uncertain or do not fit. They can advise on whether a matter warrants escalation, what information to record, how to handle a conversation with the adult, and how to communicate with concerned parents. Calls can be made anonymously if needed, though identifying the club allows for clearer advice.

If a specific child known to the club is the subject of the concern, or is in identifiable proximity to the alleged risk, a MASH referral becomes appropriate. The referral is about the child, not the adult. The DSL frames it as a welfare concern about that child arising from the adult's presence.

If the person is on the children's barred list, they should not be working or volunteering in any regulated activity with children. This applies to coaches, not ordinary students. However, it is worth understanding the principle: a barred person engaging in regulated activity is committing an offence, and the club has a duty to report any reasonable suspicion of this. If the concern relates to a person who is also assisting with classes, helping at events, or otherwise crossing into a position involving children, this changes the legal landscape and a referral to the DBS becomes possible.

There comes a point where the club may need to speak directly with the adult student. This is not always required. If external channels yield enough information to make a decision, the conversation may be avoidable or may take a more focused form. But often the club is left with a serious concern and no external corroboration, and the choice becomes either to act on rumour alone or to put the question to the person concerned.

If a conversation is judged necessary, it must be conducted with great care.

The DSL or Deputy DSL leads the conversation. The instructor who teaches the class does not lead it unless they are also the DSL. This is a safeguarding meeting, not an instructor-student exchange.

A second member of the team - ideally senior - must be present. Their role is twofold: a witness to what is said, and a contemporaneous note-taker recording the conversation verbatim where possible. Notes are dated, timed, and signed by both club representatives at the end of the meeting.

The third person should not be someone with a teaching or social relationship to the student wherever possible. The aim is impartiality and accurate record.

The meeting is held in private, away from class hours, and in a setting where the conversation cannot be overheard. A small office or a private room at the venue, with the door closed and no other members present, is appropriate. Telephone or video calls are not suitable for a conversation of this nature.

The student is invited to attend at a specified time. The invitation is neutral in tone. It does not pre-judge the matter and does not state the specific concern in writing in advance. A phrasing such as "We need to speak with you confidentially about a welfare matter. Could you attend at [time] on [date]?" is appropriate.

The conversation is not an interrogation. It is not an accusation. It is a measured, professional discussion in which the club explains that information has come to its attention which it is duty bound to explore, and invites the student to respond.

A workable opening framing:

"Thank you for coming. As you know, we have a safeguarding responsibility to every member who trains here, particularly the children. We have become aware of information suggesting there may be a matter in your background relating to the welfare of a child. We are not in a position to verify what we have heard, and we are not making any accusation. We do, however, have a duty to ask you about it directly, to understand the position, and to consider what, if anything, we need to do as a club. Anything you tell us will be treated confidentially within the senior team. We are happy to give you time to think before responding."

The student may deny everything. They may become angry, distressed, or upset. They may confirm something. They may walk out. Any of these responses is recorded.

The DSL is not investigating a crime. The aim is to understand:

If the answer to any of these is yes, follow-up questions establish the specifics in factual terms. The DSL does not press for emotional disclosure or context beyond what is needed to assess risk.

Do not name the source of the information unless they have consented to being named, and even then, consider carefully. Do not repeat the specific allegation as fact. Do not promise that the information will go no further than the room; it may need to be shared with external agencies, and the student must be told this at the outset. Do not offer a definitive decision on the spot unless one is clearly required.

The DSL closes the meeting by:

Both club representatives sign and date the contemporaneous notes at the close. The notes are stored in the safeguarding file with restricted access.

After the conversation, the team reviews what is known. The decision sits with the DSL, with input from any relevant member of our club (such as deputy DSL, Directors etc) and/or with guidance from external experts (such as BMABA's DSL team).

Possible outcomes include:

No further action. The student has explained the matter, the information appears unfounded or relates to something with no implications for child welfare, and the club is satisfied that continued membership poses no risk. The matter is recorded, the file is retained, and ordinary membership continues.

Conditional continuation. The student remains a member but with conditions: training only in adult-only classes, no attendance at events or sessions where children are present, no role in any helper or volunteer capacity, supervised arrival and departure where practical. Conditions are documented, agreed in writing with the student, and reviewed at a defined interval.

Voluntary withdrawal. The student elects to leave. This is recorded factually. The club does not pursue the matter further unless new information arises or there is a continuing risk to others.

Termination of membership. The club concludes that continued membership is incompatible with its safeguarding obligations. The decision is recorded with full rationale. Membership is terminated in accordance with the club's terms. The student is notified in writing. The decision is not framed as a finding of guilt; it is framed as a risk-based safeguarding decision the club is entitled to make.

In each case, the rationale for the decision is fully documented. The standard is whether a competent independent reviewer, looking at the file, could see how the decision was reached and why it was proportionate to the information available.

Parents or students who raised concerns may want to know what has happened. They are entitled to be told that the matter has been taken seriously and addressed, but they are not entitled to the detail. A general assurance is appropriate. Disclosing specifics breaches confidentiality and risks defamation.

Other instructors, club volunteers, or members are told only what they need to know to discharge their own duties. If conditions have been imposed and a specific instructor needs to enforce them, that instructor is briefed on the minimum necessary.

The senior team does not discuss the matter beyond what is needed. The student's name is not raised in general meetings.

Where conditions have been imposed, they are reviewed at a defined interval, usually three to six months initially, and recorded. New information, new disclosures, or changes in the student's circumstances trigger a fresh review.

If the matter was reported externally (Sarah's Law application, police consultation, NSPCC contact), the DSL records the outcome of those consultations in the file as they become available.

A full file is maintained covering:

Retention is a minimum of seven years from the date of the last entry, in line with BMABA's safeguarding retention standard. Access is restricted to the DSL. The file is not stored in the general membership records and is not accessible to ordinary admin staff.

The adult at the centre of this process may be innocent. They may have a record that is long spent and bears no relation to current risk. They may have been the victim of a malicious allegation. They are entitled to be treated with dignity throughout. The fact that the club's first duty is to the children does not mean the adult is treated as guilty. It means the club acts proportionately on the information it has, takes advice, asks questions properly, and makes a defensible decision.

If the club gets this right, the adult is treated fairly, the children are protected, the senior team is on firm ground, and a difficult situation is managed without scandal, without panic, and without a safeguarding failure.

When in doubt, take advice before acting. The NSPCC helpline and a 101 call cost nothing and rarely make a situation worse. Acting in isolation, on rumour, in haste, almost always does.