[2025] UKUT 303 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000235-V

Between:

EAO

Appellant

- v -

DisclosureandBarringService

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church and Tribunal Members Bainbridge and Graham

Hearing date:

Mode of hearing: Face-to-face hearing at Field House, London

Representation:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: Mr R Ryan instructed by Ms Natalie Mason (of DBS legal department)

On appeal from:

Decision maker: The Disclosure and Barring Service

Reference No: 010004796300

Decision Date: 29 September 2023

RULE 14 Order

Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant in these proceedings. This order does not apply to: (a) the appellant; (b) any person to whom the appellant discloses such a matter or who learns of it through publication by the appellant; or (c) any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

SAFEGUARDING (65)

This case is about proportionality. Following the approach confirmed by the Presidential Panel of the Upper Tribunal in KS v Disclosure and Barring Service [2025] UKUT 45 (AAC), we considered for ourselves whether DBS’s decision to place the Appellant’s name on Adults’ Barred List was proportionate, given the factual findings it had made, which the Appellant had accepted.

We decided that the DBS’s decision was proportionate and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION