AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)

Fecha: 31-Oct-2025

The grounds of appeal

The grounds of appeal

39.

In their Appellants’ Notices and skeleton arguments, MD and SF challenge the SSE’s decision to impose prohibition order on a wide number of grounds.

40.

The Appellants advanced five grounds of appeal:

Ground 1 (“Insight and Remorse”). They had accepted responsibility, reflected deeply on their actions and undertaken corrective action.

ii)

Ground 2 (“Risk of Repeat is Nil”).There was no risk of repetition.

iii)

Ground 3 (“Proportionality and Public Interest”). The prohibition orders were disproportionate and served no public interest.

iv)

Ground 4: “new and relevant fresh evidence shows compliance” (“the Fresh Evidence Ground”).

Ground 5 - an alleged procedural irregularity because the Crown Court transcript omitted the evidence of Mrs Hamouda (“the Procedural Irregularity Ground”).

41.

The SSE made an application to adduce fresh evidence on a contingent basis if the appeal was allowed. In circumstances in which that evidence is only alleged to be contingently relevant, I have had no regard to it for the purpose of determining the appeal.

42.

The Appellants themselves sought, informally, to place documents before the court which had not been before the PCPs. This material falls into three groups:

Material intended to answer the additional evidence which the SSE wished contingently to adduce, which I do not need to say more about.

ii)

Material related to events after the PCP hearings. I have dealt with this material on its merits.

iii)

Material which either was available when the PCP hearings took place, or could have been available (for example character references). I was offered no explanation of why material in this category could not have been placed before the PCPs had reasonable diligence been exercised, nor was I persuaded it added materially to the position before the PCPs. I refused the application to admit the evidence for those reasons.