[2023] UKUT 275 (AAC)

MM points to the passage of more than 22 years between the “relevant conduct” relied upon and the Barring Decisions. MM maintains that the absence of any convictions, or indeed evidence of any allegations of similar conduct, in such a long period demonstrates that the risk of repetition of such conduct was so low as to make the Barring Decisions irrational and disproportionate (“Ground 1”).

Further, in relation to the decision to place his name on the children’s barred list, MM argues that he has no sexual interest in children and poses no risk of harm to children. He maintains that, given the DBS’s own finding in its Barring Process Decision document that it “would not be able to establish that [MM] has a sexual interest in children”, the inclusion of his name in the children’s barred list was irrational (“Ground 2”).

I granted permission to appeal because I considered that the grounds put forward were arguable with a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success. I directed an oral hearing because I decided that it was in the interests of justice to allow the Appellant to give evidence and to give the DBS’s counsel the opportunity to cross-examine him.