![[2023] UKUT 241 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The oral hearing of the Upper Tribunal appeal
The oral hearing of the Upper Tribunal appeal
We held a hearing of this appeal at the Rolls Building in London on 8 September 2023. The Appellant, as he is still serving a term of imprisonment, attended remotely by way of a CVP video-link. We are indebted to the HM Prison in question for facilitating his virtual attendance. The Appellant was ably represented by Mr Edward Harrison of counsel, acting pro bono, instructed by Advocate, the Bar Council’s pro bono unit. We thank him especially, not least as we are under no illusion as to the practical difficulties facing the Appellant in giving instructions to Mr Harrison. The Respondent (the Disclosure and Barring Service or ‘the DBS’) was likewise ably represented by Ms Fiona Scolding KC, instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP. Indeed, we are very grateful to both counsel for their careful and well-focussed presentations.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal by the Appellant
- This decision and the Orders that follow are given under section 4(5) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698)
- Pursuant to rule 14(1)(a) the Upper Tribunal orders that no documents or information should be disclosed in relation to these proceedings that would tend to identify any person who has been involved i
- The outcome of this appeal to the Upper Tribunal in a sentence
- A summary of the Upper Tribunal’s decision and what happens next
- The background
- The oral hearing of the Upper Tribunal appeal
- The Orders made on this appeal
- The statutory framework
- The DBS decision to bar the Appellant under the SVGA 2006
- The application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The grounds of appeal before the Upper Tribunal
- Ground 1: the failure to escalate to the DBS Head of Service
- Ground 2: the DBS erred in law in concluding that any risk of harm was transferable from adults to children
- Ground 3: the Appellant’s inclusion on the CBL was disproportionate
- Ground 4: the Respondent’s reliance on the fact that the Appellant was intoxicated when committing the offences
- Disposal
- Conclusions