![[2025] UKUT 17 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Materiality
Materiality
We consider however the mistake in relation to the second finding of relevant conduct does not materially impact on the DBS’s decision overall to include the Appellant in the Children's Barred List. This is because we consider there is no error of law or mistake of fact on which the Respondent’s decision was based in relation to the first finding of relevant conduct and this finding is sufficiently serious to justify inclusion on the Children's Barred List. We are satisfied that it is inevitable that the DBS would have decided to include the Appellant on the barred list based on the first finding of relevant conduct alone (including that it was proportionate to do so).
- Heading
- A summary of the Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Introductory matters
- The statutory framework
- The appeal provisions
- The guidance in the case law
- Mistakes of law
- The DBS’s barring decision
- A brief summary of the factual background to the appeal
- The grounds of appeal and the parties' submissions
- The oral hearing of the substantive appeal
- JA’s oral evidence at hearing
- Our assessment of the appellant’s evidence and findings of fact
- Other grounds of appeal relating to first finding of relevant conduct
- T he indecent image: second finding of relevant conduct
- Materiality
- Proportionality
- 49.These four questions were later developed by Lord Sumption in Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39 at 20
- 50.In assessing proportionality, the Upper Tribunal has ‘…to give appropriate weight to the decision of a body charged by statute with a task of expert evaluation’ (see Independent Safeguarding Author
- Conclusions