[2024] UKUT 19 (AAC)

there was a paucity of evidence in relation to the three incidents; and therefore, by inference, a mistake in DBS’s factual finding that there had been harm suffered by the three children involved

no reasonable decision making body would have concluded as DBS did; there was no critical examination of the conflicting material

the mere fact that child is observed to be apprehensive, or has been crying, is not evidence of harm; harm to a child is the detrimental effect of a significant nature on a child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing. Transient expressions of not liking a teacher’s manner or strictness is not behaviour which harms a child

there was evidence of there being no safeguarding concerns concerning CW:

the 2019 incident was on “unspecified date”; the LADO involved appeared to investigate the matter and find it not proved; the 2019 incident was (presumably) not proved, as (i) there was no follow up after an internal investigation by the supply agency and (ii) that supply agency said there had been no safeguarding issues

CW disputed what was said in DBS’s “Barring decision summary” that four children witnessed the May 2021 incident; only one saw the “pen” part; another saw P being “bumped”

CW made arguments based on the police conclusion (in the May 2021 incident) that further police action was not appropriate or required. CW submitted that the police were uniquely placed to decide if there had been harm to children

there was no evidence of harm or risk of harm – hence no “relevant conduct”

DBS’s “Barring decision summary” document states in the “Evidence evaluation outcome” section (after setting out the three allegations found proven):

“This appears to constitute relevant conduct for children as CW has caused children emotional and physical harm.

A decision has been made to go straight minded to bar as CW has physically assaulted a child and there is limited information from him that would provide an efficient SJP”;