Carer struck off for secretly filming woman in 'private act'
Dokubo Bokolo failed to notify the Scottish Social Services Council of his crimes.
A care home worker has been struck off after secretly filming a woman in the midst of "doing a private act".
Dokubo Bokolo also pleaded guilty to sending the same woman a sexually explicit recording and for being in possession of extreme pornographic images.
Bokolo committed the crimes in July 2017. At Aberdeen Sheriff Court in November 2018, he was sentenced to a Community Payback Order with unpaid work and was placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for five years.
Sheriff Graham Buchanan also made a recommendation that Bokolo be deported back to his native Nigeria.
At a Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) hearing last week, Bokolo was removed from the register following his convictions and for failing to inform the official care body of his crimes.
The fitness to practise panel heard that Bokolo had been suspended and later dismissed by his Aberdeen employer.
Although the panel accepted that the crimes took place before Bokolo's "registerable employment", they stated the matter was "further aggravated" and could be seen as a "breach of trust" as he failed to report that he had been charged and later convicted once he was in employment.
In a signed interview with his employer, Bokolo acknowledged his convictions but claimed that he was not aware of the importance of reporting them.
His convictions were described as "most serious".
The case presenter stated: "The seriousness of the conviction and the public interest matters alone are substantial enough to mean that [Bokolo] should be regarded as being impaired."
The panel agreed.
Although Bokolo failed to show for his hearing, the SSSC accepted in his absence that it was an "isolated incident, not a premeditated act" as he had apologised to the woman he filmed.
However, the panel stated that his behaviour was "unacceptable" and represented "a serious departure from the standards" set out in the care code.
Removing Bokolo from the register, the panel stated: "The panel acknowledged that a removal order will have financial and reputational consequences for you.
"It was the view of the panel that any such consequences for you are outweighed by the need to uphold public confidence in the SSSC as the regulator and by doing so, serve the wider public interest to protect the integrity of the register and the reputation of the SSSC as regulator.
"There would be a serious impact on public confidence in the SSSC as regulator if a person currently subject to a notification period under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was allowed to work with vulnerable adults.
"In all the circumstances, it is the view of the panel that it is both fair and proportionate to impose a removal order."