![[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Grant of permission to appeal
Grant of permission to appeal
Permission to appeal was given by the Upper Tribunal in a decision issued on 4 November 2023. Upper Tribunal Judge Citron expressed his reasons for giving permission to appeal, as follows:
DBS’s decision is based on [its core findings].
One of these (allegation 2: that DJB did not disclose that [B] had two convictions for sexual offences) does not appear to be challenged by DJB, as a factual finding (apart from the challenge that these were “cautions”, rather than “convictions” – but this does not appear to me to be a material mistake of fact, in the overall context).
DBS’s other two [core] findings are, however, challenged.
It seems to me realistically arguable that DBS made material mistakes in its “allegation 3” and “allegation 1” factual findings, since:
DJB has provided written evidence to the Upper Tribunal as to why her behaviour was not “deceptive” and why she did “sufficiently safeguard” [C] (including at pages 14 and 15 of the bundle); DBS did not find DJB’s evidence prior to its decision, persuasive; however, it is realistically arguable that oral evidence from DJB (in a hearing before the Upper Tribunal) could show that, on the balance of probabilities, her behaviour was not “deceptive”, and that she did “sufficiently safeguard” [C];
allegation 3 refers to DJB having breached a statement of expectations that she signed as regards specified events involving [B]; and allegation 1 refers to her not having adhered to “the expectations with regard to [B]”; however, per the evidence in the bundle, the “statement of expectations” appears to have been signed on 18 January 2022, which was after some or all of these events (involving [B]) took place.
It also seems to me that, if DJB were to be able to establish mistakes by DBS in some or all of [its core findings], it would then be realistically arguable that DBS made a mistake on a point of law by making a decision that was disproportionate.”
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Respondent made on 23 March 2023 (reference DBS6191 00986829326 ) to include DJB in the children’s and adults’ barred l
- The decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- Grant of permission to appeal
- Documentary evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal hearing
- The background facts
- Summary of DJB’s main arguments and evidence on contested matters
- Knowledge of B’s cautions for sexual offences and efforts to get B “checked”
- B’s overnight stays at DJB’s home and arrangements for parking his vehicles
- Discussion: did DBS make mistakes of fact or law in the decision?
- Core finding 2 (the DJB did not disclose B’s two convictions for sexual offences)
- Core finding 3 (the DJB was deceptive re: B by breaching statement of expectations re: spending the night at DJB’s home, being present when C there, length of relationship, and how long DJB knew about
- Core finding 1 (the DJB did not sufficiently safeguard C by adhering to expectations re: B, which caused end of placement and distress to C)
- DBS’s other factual findings
- Mistake on a point of law?
- Conclusions