[2025] UKUT 036 (AAC)

The first error of law ground is that the DBS failed to identify and consider the “safeguarding policies and procedures” it is said SB had “failed” to follow on 10 August 2022. It is further argued that the DBS made a further error in failing to consider whether it was a realistic and reasonable approach in all the circumstances for patients to never to be touched and an ambulance called in any situation where there was a fall. SB argues here that so to act would have required her to leave the service user lying face down on the floor (in a position where her breathing would likely be impaired) for an indefinite period despite believing her to be uninjured. This prima, facie, would to be an irrational approach.

The second error of law ground (which states it is also an error of fact ground) is that the DBS erred by dismissing evidence of SB’s insight and remorse in unqualified terms. SB argues that the DBS wrongly focused only on SB’s most recent representations to it and thus ignored other evidence of SB’s insight and remorse. This it is said is demonstrated by the fact that the DBS’s previous barring decision, of 29 March 2023, “acknowledged that [SB had] accepted responsibility for [her] behaviour and [had] apologised for it”. It is argued by SB under this ground in particular, and as a result, that the DBS was wrong to find (i) she had not accepted responsibility for her actions and had placed all the blame onto her colleague; (ii) that she had demonstrated an attitude that her behaviour was ok; and (iii) that she had focused only on the impact the incident had had on herself and her future aspirations.

The third error law ground for which SB has permission to appeal argues that the DBS erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence and made an unreasonable assessment of the risk of future harm posed by SB. The DBS’s decision to bar SB it is argued was based on a single unfortunate accident which lasted less than an hour and where SB was not the service user’s regular carer, she generally cared for people with less advanced needs, and had not experienced a scenario such as the incident in issue before. It is argued in addition, inter alia, under this ground of appeal that (i) the DBS failed to consider the character references provided by SB, and (ii) that barring her, as an otherwise excellent carer, for a single incident for which she immediately took responsibility and into which she demonstrated insight, was wholly disproportionate.

A separate ground of appeal is advanced by SB in respect of her inclusion on the children’s barred list. Here it is argued that the DBS failed to explain how “similar situations” could arise in respect of children, and it was therefore irrational and/or disproportionate for the DBS to have included SB on the children’s barred list.

An overarching error of law ground of appeal is that the DBS did not provide adequate reasons for its decision.