[2023] UKUT 241 (AAC)

We refer to the Appellant in this decision as Mr W even though this is not the true initial for his surname. By the same token this decision, if cited, should be referred to as WW v Disclosure and Barring Service. We do so, and make the Orders included at the head of this decision, for two reasons. First, the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, notably section 1, apply to this case. As a result, no matter relating to the complainant (Mr W’s ex-wife) shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that individual as the victim of a sexual offence. Second, we are satisfied that neither the Appellant nor his (current) wife or child should be identified in this decision, whether directly by name or indirectly. Having regard to the interests of justice, we are accordingly satisfied that it is proportionate to make the rule 14 Orders. To avoid the possibility of ‘jigsaw identification’, we omit from our discussion all bar the essential facts of the case. We have therefore deliberately redacted some potentially identifying details that appear in the original source documents from which we cite.