![[2025] UKUT 008 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The people involved in this case
The people involved in this case
As already noted, in this decision we refer to the Appellant as OS. We refer to the other people involved by the following names (which are not their true names) or (with respect to one individual) an abbreviation:
Clive: The Deputy Manager
Edward: The service user
Kim: The co-worker
Linda: The care agency line manager
NOK: Edward’s wife, the next-of-kin
To ensure anonymity remains in place, where we have quoted from original source documents, we have replaced the various individuals’ real names with the appropriate pseudonyms as detailed above. We show how that is done in the next part of this decision by the use of square brackets in the extract from the DBS’s decision. After that, we just insert the relevant names where appropriate. For the same reasons of ensuring anonymity, we refer to OS and Kim’s employer as simply ‘the care agency’.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service dated 4 May 2023 did not involve an error of law or material mistake of fact
- Introduction
- The Upper Tribunal oral hearing
- The legal framework
- The people involved in this case
- The DBS decision
- The grounds of appeal
- Our findings of fact
- Discussion of the ‘error of law’ grounds of appeal
- Discussion of the ‘mistake of fact’ grounds of appeal
- Conclusions