![[2025] UKUT 030 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
In this case the DBS relied upon the ‘relevant conduct’ gateway. That required the DBS to be ‘satisfied’ of three things:
that DKS was at the relevant time, had in the past been, or might in future be ‘engaged’ in, ‘regulated activity’ in relation to vulnerable adults (see paragraph 9(3)(aa) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA);
that DKS had ‘engaged’ in (see paragraph 9(3)(a) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA) ‘relevant conduct’ (defined in paragraph 4); and
that it was ‘appropriate’ to include DKS on the adults’ barred list (see paragraph 9(3)(b) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA).
If the DBS was satisfied of all three matters above, it was required to place DKS’s name on the adults’ barred list.
DKS accepts that the ‘regulated activity’ requirement is met in this case by reason of his having worked as a Senior Care Assistant (see page 22 of the appeal bundle), so there is no issue with regards to 24 a. above.
With regard to the issue at 24 b.,it is accepted by DKS that the alleged conduct relied upon by the DBS would, if engaged in, amount to ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to a vulnerable adult(see page 192 of the appeal bundle). DKS maintains, however, that the DBS’s findings are mistaken because he didn’t do what was alleged.
In terms of issue c. in paragraph 24 above, ‘appropriateness’ is not a matter for the Upper Tribunal unless the decision-making around appropriateness is irrational (see below).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service was not based on any mistake of fact and did not involve any mistake on any point of law
- Introduction
- Factual background
- The allegations
- DKS’s Written Representations
- The Barring Decision
- The criminal proceedings
- The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the SVGA
- The relevant authorities
- The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions
- The evidence at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal
- Analysis
- Conclusions