![[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Legal framework
Legal framework
Relevant legal framework for DBS’s decision
The appellant in this case was included on the children’s barred list using DBS’s powers in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the SVGA 2006.
Under those paragraphs, subject to the right to make representations, DBS must include a person on the relevant list if (in summary and in so far as relevant to the present appeal):
The person has engaged in conduct which endangers or is likely to endanger a child or vulnerable adult (Sch 3, paragraph 3 and paragraph 9);
The person has been or might in future be engaged in regulated activity in relation to children; and,
DBS is satisfied that it is appropriate to include them in the relevant list.
“Endangers” means (in summary) that the conduct harms or might harm the child: see Schedule 3, paragraphs 4(4).
A person included in a barred list may apply for a review of their inclusion after the prescribed minimum period of 10 years (paragraph 18), or at any time on the basis of new information, a change in circumstances or an error (paragraph 18A).
- 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