Social worker struck off for historic child abuse
Social worker convicted of two counts of Buggery, five counts of indecent assault and one count of indecency with a child
Published on 10th June 2019
A social worker convicted of historic child abuse offences has been struck off the social work register by the Health and Care Professions Council.
Mr Chetin Kaya Hussyinn was convicted of two counts of Buggery, five counts of indecent assault and one count of indecency with a child at Blackfriars Crown Court on 27 September 2018.
A Panel for the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service said: "The Panel decided that any sanction less than a Striking-Off Order would not be sufficient to protect the public interest. The reputation of the profession has been damaged by the Registrant’s conviction."
Mr Hussyinn currently disputes the conviction and wishes to appeal.
Mr Hussyinn was employed as a social worker with Torbay Council when concerns that led to his conviction were reported to the HCPC on 22 July 2016. He was investigated by the police in relation to historic child abuse offences which took place in the 1970s.
Mr Hussyinn denied his conduct towards three victims and the matter went to trial. On 27 September 2018 at Blackfriars Crown Court he was found guilty of two counts of buggery, five counts of indecent assault, and one count of indecency with a child. He was sentenced at Blackfriars Crown Court on 28 September 2018 to a total of 14 years imprisonment including a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and notification requirements for an indefinite period.
He is also prohibited from “taking employment or being otherwise engaged in any position or capacity, paid or voluntary, which would involve any unsupervised contact with a male child under the age of 16 year…”.
The judge said that Mr Hussyin had been convicted of offences perpetrated upon three boys over a period of between 1971 and 1984 while he was responsible for running a youth football team and where he was an intermediate treatment worker with young offenders.
"You had a sexual interest in young boys and you were clearly willing and able to indulge that interest by taking advantage of the youths with whom you worked or who visited your home," said the Judge.
"In respect of Person 3 at some point in the early 1970s you committed buggery upon him, clearly without his consent. This, he rightly describes as rape and he recalls that he was incapacitated at the time through drink or drugs. Whether or not you gave him those drink or drugs you would have been well aware of that fact and you exploited a young boy in circumstances with a cynical and selfish act of sexual predation. The impact upon Person 3 over four decades, since that time has clearly had long-term profound implications."
"Person 4 is another youth whom you exploited, albeit he saw this as sexual experimentation. You could not fail to have known that he was only 14 at the time of the incident of buggery. You were an adult in your early 20s, you knew it was illegal, you knew that he was affectively (sic) under your care as he played in the team that you organised, and he speaks of you making repeated passes at him. He would no doubt have been flattered by the attention of the older man and he looked up to you," the judge added.
"With your encouragement, young boys visited the houses where you lived and they have said, particularly Person 1 has said, that they were given free rein to smoke or to drink. Person 1 was one of those and you knew that he was only a young child; on his recollection, no more than eight and a half when you first met him. It would have been obvious to an adult that he was vulnerable and that his home life was unhappy. He took refuge in your household and you used that to your advantage by placing persistent pressure on him to let you be sexually active with him. Whilst there was no intercourse, as such, there was a long-term pattern of sexual abuse involving your sucking his penis, making him masturbate you and this continued over an extended period of time. He recalls that period as extending from the time he was eight until around the time when he would have been 15. Eventually you appeared to have simply passed him on to your friend, Person 2, to do likewise with him.
"With Person 1 to an even greater extent, of Person 3 or Person 4 the behaviour….has contributed to his deterioration and misery over a period in excess of 30 years. The psychological damage done by the exploitation of a child at that age is incalculable but immense and nothing that I have seen in the course of this trial suggests to me a flicker of remorse….,but rather a cynical attempt to avoid the consequences of your actions by forcing of the three complainants to relive the misery and anguish in public.”
The Panel considered the nature, circumstances and gravity of the convictions. The offences involve criminal sexual offences against children which is a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. The Panel highlighted that Mr Hussyinn breached the trust placed in him by his victims, in order to satisfy his own sexual desires. Mr Hussyinn's victims were young and vulnerable and the offences involved grooming behaviour, sexual activity with a child with aggravating features, and persistent and repeated offending.
His offending was considered by the sentencing judge to be so serious that an immediate and lengthy prison sentence was imposed.
The degree of harm caused by his criminal conduct was significant, as summarised in the sentencing remarks. It has had long-term consequences. The high level of his culpability is also emphasised in the sentencing remarks.
The Panel said that although the criminal behaviour was more than forty years ago, there was no evidence to persuade the Panel that Mr Hussyinn would not repeat the criminal conduct. The Panel also noted the references in the Judge’s sentencing remarks to Mr Hussyinn's sexual interest in young boys and there was therefore a risk of repetition and an ongoing risk of harm to young service users.
The Panel had regard to the sentence imposed on, including the indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order. It also noted the Registrant’s not guilty plea and continuing denial.
The Panel also gave careful consideration to the Registrant’s interests. He currently disputes the conviction and wishes to appeal. It would be in his interests to have the option to practise as a Social Worker if he were to appeal and his appeal was successful. The guidance in the ISP informed the Panel that unless new evidence comes to light a person may not make an application to be restored to the Register before the expiry of five years. The Panel therefore noted that the Registrant would have the option of applying for restoration on the basis of new evidence if his conviction were to be overturned on appeal.
However, the Panel said that a Suspension Order was not sufficient to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s departure from professional standards and decided that any sanction less than a Striking-Off Order would not be sufficient to protect the public interest.
Receive the latest interviews, features and news stories in the Locum Today monthly email newsletter, designed and produced for locum social workers in the UK.
Type in your email address below and click Subscribe.
Published on 07 January 2016
BASW professional officer Sue Kent and Tricia Gbinigie, business development officer for Independent and Locum Social Workers at BASW provide their Top 10 Tips on things to consider before becoming a locum or independent social worker.
Published on 10 December 2015
Sue Kent, professional officer at BASW, provides locum social workers with 10 Top Tips for successful report writing.