![[2024] UKUT 427 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal.
The Disclosure and Barring Service is directed to remove the appellant from the barred list pursuant to section 4(6)(a) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The appellant in this case appeals under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA 2006) against the decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) of 18 September 2023 including her in the adult’s barred lists pursuant to paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the SVGA 2006. This is the unanimous decision of the Upper Tribunal following an oral hearing. The structure of this decision is as follows:
Relevant legal framework for DBS’s decision 9
The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal 10
Our approach to the evidence 17
The appellant’s evidence at this hearing 26
Our analysis and conclusions 29
Grounds 1-6 concerning DBS finding (i): locking residents in rooms 30
Ground 7: Finding (ii): verbal abuse of residents in her care: 36
- 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