Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 270 (AAC)

Fecha: 14-Jun-2024

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

The decision was made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the children’s barred list if

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,

it has reason to believe that the person is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraph 4, “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 3 includes, amongst other things, conduct which endangers a child or is likely to endanger a child; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a child if he (amongst other things)

harms a child or

causes a child to be harmed

puts a child at risk of harm or

attempts to harm a child.

The letter conveying DBS’s decision (the “decision letter”):

stated that DBS was satisfied that

on 12 October 2020, in response to a child (PK) screaming, JI acted inappropriately when she

used a highchair for unsuitable purposes

ii.

restrained PK in a highchair and placed her outside

iii.

breached health and safety policy when she lifted PK whilst in the highchair to move her

iv.

told PK "it’s a bit wet and cold outside isn’t it?”

used a piece of equipment to block PK in whilst in the highchair

on unspecified dates JI used highchairs as a restraint rather than for their intended purpose.

(we will refer to the above as DBS’s “core factual findings”);

ii.

acknowledged that JI stated that she had sought help for her personal issues, and those issues had been dealt with; however, JI denied that the personal issues affected her behaviour with PK;

iii.

stated that the evidence pointed to JI being under stress due to personal/work related issues and this led to JI not being able to cope appropriately with a child's relatively unchallenging behaviour; but JI was unwilling to accept that personal/work issues were having an negative impact on her behaviour; this raised concerns that if placed in similar circumstances in the future JI will allow stress to impact on how she behaved resulting in her not being able to cope effectively, which could result in physical and/or emotional harm to those involved; DBS could not be certain that JI would not repeat this behaviour in regulated activity in the future;

iv.

stated that the proportionality of the decision had been considered; a significant impact on JI’s future employment opportunities within regulated activity was acknowledged (and resultant detrimental impact on JI’s earning potential and, possibly, standard of living); it balanced JI’s rights against those of the vulnerable groups who may be at risk of harm; it found that JI had shown an unwillingness to accept that personal and work issues were impacting on her working life, resulting in JI struggling to cope with a child's relatively unchallenging behaviour which has placed the child at risk of physical and emotional harm. It concluded that it was an appropriate and proportionate safeguarding measure to include JI in the children's barred list.