Heading

Appeal No. UA-2024-000498-V
Between:
JH
Appellant
- v -
DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout, Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole and
Tribunal Member Hutchinson
Hearing date(s): 9 December 2024
Mode of hearing: By video (CVP)
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Yates (trade union representative)
Respondent: Mr Lewis (counsel)
On appeal from:
DBS ID number: P0007J5YF9N
Customer Ref: 01011825323
Decision Date: 5 January 2024
RULE 14 Order
Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify: (i) the appellant in these proceedings; (ii) any other individual identified in the evidence before the Tribunal in these proceedings; and (iii) the name of the pre-school at which the appellant worked. This order does not apply to any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS (65)
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) included the appellant on the children’s barred list because it considered that, while working as an early years practitioner at a preschool, the appellant pulled a 4-year-old child by the hair in response to him pulling her hair. The Upper Tribunal finds that there was no mistake of law or fact in the decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service and confirms the decision.
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of DBS is confirmed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- DBS’s decision
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Submissions
- Our decision on the appeal
- Mistake of law? - Proportionality
- Conclusion
- Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in min
- 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
- 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
- An order anonymising someone who would otherwise be named in court proceedings is an interference with the principle of open justice. As Lord Reed JSC described in A v BBC [2015] AC 588 at [23]: “It i
- Ordinarily, it is said that it is not unreasonable to regard a person who brings proceedings as having accepted the normal incidences of their public nature, including the potential embarrassment and
- In this particular jurisdiction, the considerations are somewhat different to those in the authorities we have mentioned, because this is an appeal in relation to the appellant’s inclusion on the barr
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)