Factual background
Factual background
In May 1999 the Appellant was convicted, following a Crown Court trial at which he pleaded “not guilty”, of two offences of indecent assault.
In each case the assault took place at the hospital at which the Appellant was employed as a nurse. In each case the victim of the assault was an adult male patient in MM’s care. The first assault took place while MM carried out pre-operative blood pressure checks on his victim, who was then awaiting surgery. It is not known why the second victim was on the ward, but MM accepts that he was in hospital for treatment and that the assault was carried out while the Appellant provided care for him. Each assault involved MM rubbing the victim’s penis repeatedly with his elbow.
On conviction, MM was sentenced to two periods of 6 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently. He was dismissed by his employer and referred to his regulator, who struck him off the nursing register indefinitely on 9 May 2000 on the basis that he had been convicted of criminal offences which established that he had been guilty of gross misconduct. MM did not contest this sanction.
MM has, since leaving prison, gained employment and qualifications, including a degree. He became active in trade union matters, in local politics and in LGBTQ support and advocacy.
An enhanced DBS check was made in connection with MM’s application for a volunteering role with his local church. This resulted in a referral to the DBS by Greater Manchester Police, which invited representations from MM. On 17 February 2022, having received written representations from MM and positive character references, the DBS decided to place MM’s name on both the children’s and adults’ barred lists (the “Barring Decisions”).
- Heading
- On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service ( “DBS” )
- Factual background
- The statutory framework
- Duty to maintain the Barred Lists
- Criteria for inclusion in the Barred Lists
- Appeals of decisions to include, or not to remove, persons in the Barred Lists
- The authorities on the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction
- The agreed facts
- MM’s grounds of appeal
- The appeal hearing
- The oral evidence
- Section 12
- Discussion
- Ground 2 – was inclusion in the children’s barred list irrational or disproportionate?
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 275 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)