[2024] UKUT 427 (AAC)

Between:

NG

Appellant

- v -

DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout, Tribunal Member Jacoby and Tribunal Member Hutchinson

Mode of hearing: By video (CVP)

Representation:

Appellant: In person (accompanied by a McKenzie friend)

Respondent: Richard Ryan (counsel)

On appeal from:

DBS Reference: POOO6UJQZHS

DBS Decision Date: 18 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, or any other individual member of staff or service user referred to in the hearing bundle, at the hearing or in this judgment. In order to protect the identity of those individuals, the name of the care home concerned must also not be disclosed or published. This order does not apply to 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 VULNERABLE GROUPS (65)

DBS included the appellant on the adults’ barred list because it found: (i) she had been complicit in locking residents in their rooms overnight; and (ii) she had verbally abused residents. The Upper Tribunal finds that there was no evidence for finding (ii) which was an error of fact and law. The Upper Tribunal further finds that in deciding to bar the appellant for finding (i) DBS erred in law and in fact in a number of respects, including that the barring decision was disproportionate and breached the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal directs DBS to remove the appellant from the list.

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 Tribunal follow.

DECISION