[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)

The DBS should have sought the underlying documents relating to these allegations rather than relying upon a s47 investigation which refers to previous contacts with children’s services or matters referred to in a child and family assessment in November 2019 rather than seeking the underlying material upon which the relevant information is based.

The police make no reference to the allegation of domestic violence in July 2013 alleged by a support worker in the information they supplied to the DBS.

The DBS submits that appellate authorities (Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 at 70, approving the principles set out at Mr. Justice Haddon Cave in R(Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EHWC 1662 at 99 – 100) identify that the obligation on the decision maker is to take such steps as are reasonable to inform himself, and it is for the public body to decide the manner and intensity of the inquiry to be taken. The court should only intervene if no reasonable authority possessed of that material could suppose that the inquiries they made were sufficient. Moreover, and somewhat contrary to the legal submissions made by the Appellant, which were predicated on the basis that making reasonable inquiries is part and parcel of procedural fairness, the Court of Appeal finds that the duty to have regard and consider matters relevant to the public body’s decision-making springs from the Secretary of State to inform himself to arrive at a rational conclusion. The wider the discretion that the decision maker has, the more important it is that he has all relevant material to exercise it properly.

On the facts of this case, the issue is whether the information received by the DBS was sufficient to inform themselves of the nature of the allegations i.e. was it irrational to fail to ask the police or social services for further material? There is no statutory or common law duty on the DBS to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry (JO v Disclosure and Barring Service [2023] UKUT 308 at [90]) but it must act rationally and in good faith when obtaining information. In JO, the Upper Tribunal identified that it may be useful if the DBS could confirm if it has taken reasonable steps to obtain all relevant evidence.

The Respondent (DBS) made the following submissions in response to those of the Appellant: