Heading

THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER | Appeal No. UA-2022-001065-V [2024] UKUT 126 (AAC) |
On appeal from a decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service
Between: | AA | Appellant |
and | ||
The Disclosure and Barring Service | Respondent |
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Perez, John Hutchinson and Suzanna Jacoby
Decided on 18 April 2024 following an oral hearing in person in Birmingham on 28 February 2024
Representation:
Appellant: The appellant represented herself
DBS: Mr Ashley Serr of counsel
ANONYMITY ORDER On 5 May 2023, Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway made the following order, which remains in force— “Pursuant to rule 14 of the above Rules, the Upper Tribunal grants anonymity to the individuals referred to in the documentation which relates to this case as “child”, “parent” and “young person” (three separate individuals). Accordingly, no person shall, without the consent of the Upper Tribunal, publish or reveal the name or address of those individuals or any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any family member of any of them, in connection with these proceedings. Further, the Upper Tribunal takes the opportunity to remind the parties and anyone who may read these directions of the content of Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 as follows: (2) No person shall publish to the public at large or any section of the public any material which is intended, or likely to identify- (a) any child as being involved in any proceedings before the High Court or the family court in which any power under this Act or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child, or (b) an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.”. |
DECISION
The appeal is allowed to the extent of remittal.
- 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
![[2024] UKUT 126 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)