[2025] UKUT 333 (AAC)

I gave unrestricted leave to appeal on 12 September 2024.

The grounds of appeal have been framed in various different ways and I agree with the DBS’s helpful compartmentalisation of them into five grounds. In relation to each of those grounds, I have summarised the parties’ respective submissions below.

This is the central matter in issue. In relation to this ground GE points to his acquittal by a jury which he says was well placed to consider X’s credibility, having heard evidence from her. He points to inconsistencies in X’s accounts, lack of specificity in X’s account about alleged rapes, X’s motive to remove GE from the family home, and her withdrawal of charges after he moved out. GE makes an allegation that X is of bad character and mentions fraud. He relies on his consistency and good character.

The DBS says that X’s evidence is credible because she did not set out to accuse GE of rape, that her temporary retraction of support for the prosecution is explicable because of cultural pressures, that she has been broadly consistent including confiding in her GP. The DBS says there is no evidence that X has been dishonest, and that GE’s acquittal is neither here nor there because a different standard of proof is applied.

In relation to these grounds GE points to the fact that the allegations arose within a domestic context, and the lack of other evidence that he is a risk. The DBS says that as there is evidence of non-consensual sexual activity there is a risk of harm to vulnerable adults, and that it carefully assessed the risk and gave reasons as set out at [124-5].

In support of this ground GE relies on the weakness of evidence, the acquittal, and the effect on him of being barred. GE’s solicitors asserted that spousal rape is not a crime in Nigeria and implied that was relevant to proportionality. The DBS says that it carefully considered the proportionality of placing GE on the Barred List as recorded in detail in the Barring Decision Process document and considered the nature of the role that GE applied for and an acknowledgment of the effects that the Decision may have on GE’s employment. The DBS says its decision on appropriateness can only be set aside if it was unreasonable which this plainly was not.

GE says that DBS wrongly required him to produce evidence to back up his denial. The DBS says that reading the decision as a whole it is clear that the DBS analysed the credibility of both accounts properly.