[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)

In accordance with its usual practice, the decision-maker at DBS recorded the evidence, the appellant’s representations and their thinking in relation to the appellant’s case in detail in its Barring Decision Summary document. This has been provided to the appellant as part of these appeal proceedings but was not provided to the appellant prior to her commencing the appeal.

In its final decision letter of 5 January 2024, DBS stated that it had decided it was appropriate and proportionate to include the appellant on the children’s barred list. DBS explained that it was satisfied that whilst working as an early years practitioner at a pre-school, the appellant pulled a four-year-old child by the hair in response to him pulling her hair. DBS stated it was satisfied that this was relevant conduct in relation to a child because the conduct endangered or was likely to endanger a child, causing physical and emotional harm.

DBS rejected the appellant’s denials that this had occurred because it was satisfied that there was sufficient witness evidence that the incident had occurred, and that there was no reason to doubt the credibility of the witnesses, including Child A, despite the arguments that the appellant had raised.

Regarding the alleged inconsistency as to Child A’s hat, DBS stated that it was reasonable to conclude that Child A put this back on after the appellant pulled his hair and before entering the classroom. DBS explained that it found the witness statements credible, given their number and consistency and the fact that the appellant had not provided any detail as to poor relationships with staff members.

DBS explained that it was concerned that despite her employment experience, the appellant had displayed poor coping skills and frustration on the day in question, and that she had shown a lack of empathy through failing to recognise that the heat would make children more tired and grumpy and by pulling Child A’s hair.

DBS acknowledged that a barring decision would prevent the appellant from working in her chosen profession and would significantly limit her employment opportunities and have financial implications, as well as causing personal stigma which could impact on her wellbeing. However, DBS stated that it was satisfied that the risk she posed to children was sufficient to make it appropriate and proportionate to include her on the children’s barred list.