[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)

ground 1: It seems to us that DBS’s core factual findings amount to “relevant conduct”, because they represent conduct which was likely to put a vulnerable adult at risk of harm. Needless to say, this does not mean it is necessarily appropriate to include JW in the barred lists – that is a matter for DBS’s discretion, based on all the relevant facts;

ground 2: it seems to us that the “secondary findings of fact” referred to here (“lack of insight and empathy”, “poor problem solving and coping skills”, “failure to take responsibility”, “future risk of harm”) are, for the most part, evaluative judgements that are part and parcel of DBS’s decision as to the appropriateness of including JW in the barred lists (and, to that extent, outwith the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal);

ground 3: this largely overlaps with ground 2; for the same reasons, we do not consider it discloses a mistake of fact or of law in DBS’s decision;

ground 4: in our view, DBS’s decision, in light of the facts found by it, was not “off the spectrum” of reasonable decisions that could have been made on those facts; and DBS’s decision itself reasonably considered issues of proportionality. We do not consider that DBS’s decision, on the facts as found, was disproportionate.