[2025] UKUT 075 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 075 (AAC)

Fecha: 16-Oct-2024

Heading

NCN. [2025] UKUT 075 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000444-V

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

Between:

MG

Appellant

- v -

DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Holly Stout, Tribunal Member Roger Graham and Tribunal Member John Hutchinson

Hearing date(s): 16 October 2024

Mode of hearing: In person

Representation:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: Mr Ashley Serr (counsel)

On appeal from:

DBS Decision Reference: 00997358874

DBS Decision Date: 16 January 2024

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 or any other individuals referred to in these proceedings, or the name of home where the appellant worked.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS (65)

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) decided to include the appellant on the children’s and adults’ barred lists because she had slept whilst on duty as a Night Support Worker. The Upper Tribunal decided that while DBS was correct that the appellant had slept whilst on duty, DBS had made material mistakes of fact in its decision in finding that the appellant intended to sleep whilst on duty and as to her attitude and response to the incident. The Upper Tribunal made a preliminary decision that DBS had made mistakes of fact, but adjourned consideration of the appellant’s further ground of appeal, which was based on the proportionality of DBS’s decision. The parties were invited to make further submissions on proportionality. DBS then reviewed its decision of its own motion under paragraph 18A of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and decided to remove the appellant from the registers. The parties then consented to the appeal being disposed of by consent. This document includes both the Upper Tribunal’s Decision On Preliminary Issue and the Consent Order.

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 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE