![[2024] UKUT 126 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
E. Conclusion
It is for all of the above reasons that we allow the appeal to the extent of remittal, and that we make the findings on which the new DBS decision must be based.
We remind the DBS that section 4(7)(b) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 requires the DBS to remove the appellant from the list until the DBS makes its new decision, unless the tribunal directs otherwise. We have not been invited to direct otherwise and do not direct otherwise.
Upper Tribunal Judge Rachel Perez
John Hutchinson
Suzanna Jacoby
18 April 2024
- 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