Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 277 (AAC)

Fecha: 25-Jun-2024

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

The decision was made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the adults’ 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 vulnerable adults, and

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

Under paragraph 10, “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 3 includes, amongst other things, conduct of a sexual nature involving a vulnerable adult, if it appears to DBS that the conduct is inappropriate; and conduct which endangers a vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a vulnerable adult if he (amongst other things)

harms a vulnerable adult or

causes a vulnerable adult to be harmed

puts a vulnerable adult at risk of harm or

attempts to harm a vulnerable adult.

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

stated that DBS was satisfied that

on unknown dates HA sexually touched a male resident, AR, by inserting his fingers into AR’s anus and repeatedly attempting to have sex with him

on an unknown date, HA engaged in unprofessional conversation with AR, about his (HA’s) personal life

over a period of time, HA failed to report inappropriate behaviour from AR, placing HA and colleagues at risk

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

HA had engaged in relevant conduct in relation to vulnerable adults because he had engaged in conduct which endangered a vulnerable adult or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult

a barring decision was appropriate, since HA had repeatedly breached professional boundaries with a vulnerable adult in his care;

ii.

acknowledged that HA provided evidence of a breakdown in his relationship with some of his colleagues, in support of HA’s account that allegations were been fabricated as part of a grudge; DBS however considered that the evidence given by the victim (AR) negates this and supports the credibility of the allegation. DBS also recognised that HA obtained various positive character references from staff who had worked alongside him; they do not, however, address HA’s interactions with AR, specifically;

iii.

stated that DBS could not be assured that HA would refrain for repeating the behaviour in future.