![[2024] UKUT 126 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Barring process
Barring process
The appellant’s employment agency made a referral to the DBS dated 22 March 2021 (page 29).
At some point after that referral had been made and before the DBS sent the Minded-to-Bar letter, it appears (from the Minded-to-Bar letter) that the DBS sent the appellant an early warning letter. The early warning letter told her that the DBS was considering including her in one or both lists.
The DBS sent the appellant a Minded-to-Bar letter dated 8 February 2022 (pages 23 to 26). The Minded-to-Bar letter informed the appellant that the DBS thought it may be appropriate to include her in the children’s barred list. The Minded-to-Bar letter enclosed other information that the DBS held. The letter invited the appellant’s representations as to why the DBS should not include her in the list. The appellant’s solicitors, Pickup & Scott, made representations in response by letter dated 18 March 2022. We have reproduced that letter in the evidence section below.
- Heading
- REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction
- Factual and procedural background
- Conduct
- Barring process
- Final Decision letter
- Permission to appeal application
- Grounds of appeal
- The appellant’s own contemporaneous account was missing
- Documentary evidence
- Oral evidence
- Submissions
- C: Law
- Case law
- D. Analysis Preliminary analysis: the written evidence
- Mistake of fact in finding that the appellant assaulted the child
- (We return later in this decision to what we make of this part of the Serious Incident Report.)
- Tribunal’s finding of fact: the appellant’s arm or arms did connect with L’s chest and shoulders
- Whether mistake of fact in finding the appellant to have said “ if he hits me I’ll hit him back I’m not scared of him ”
- Proportionality
- Disposal
- Conclusions