![[2024] UKUT 427 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Legal framework
Legal framework
Relevant legal framework for DBS’s decision
The appellant in this case was included on the adults’ barred list using its powers in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3.
Under those paragraphs, subject to the right to make representations, DBS must include a person on the relevant list if (in summary and in so far as relevant to the present appeal):
The person has engaged in conduct which endangers or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult (Sch 3, paragraph 9 and 10(1)(a));
The person has been or might in future be engaged in regulated activity in relation to adults; and,
DBS is satisfied that it is appropriate to include them in the relevant list.
“Endangers” means (in summary) that the conduct harms or might harm the vulnerable adult: see Schedule 3, paragraph 10(4).
By paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 3 DBS must give the person an opportunity to make representations before including them on the barred list. By paragraph 16(1) a person who is given the opportunity to make representations must have the opportunity to make representations in relation to all of the information on which DBS intends to rely in taking a decision under Schedule 3.
By paragraphs 17(2) and (3) a person who does not make representations within the prescribed time may apply to DBS for permission to make representations out of time and if DBS grants permission it must consider those representations and remove the person from the list if it considers it appropriate.
A person included in a barred list may apply for a review of their inclusion after the prescribed minimum period of 10 years (paragraph 18), or at any time on the basis of new information, a change in circumstances or an error (paragraph 18A).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal
- The Upper Tribunal hearing
- DBS’s decision
- The grant of permission
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- Our approach to the evidence
- The facts
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Our analysis and conclusions
- Grounds 1-6 concerning DBS finding (i): locking residents in rooms
- Ground 1
- Grounds 2 and 3
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7: Finding (ii): verbal abuse of residents in her care
- Ground 8: lack of empathy
- Ground 9: hostility towards CQC inspectors
- Proportionality
- Conclusion on the appeal
- Suzanna Jacoby
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it was appropriate to make any orders under Rule 14 in this case going beyond the orders already made by the Registrar. We bear in mi
- Open justice means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 , [2020] AC 629 the Supreme Court explained the purpose
- Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that: “Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the inter
- Numerous cases have emphasised the link between open justice and the right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression and have provided guidance on the nature
- Conclusions