![[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 5: the DBS was wrong to find that he had demonstrated sexualised behaviour in 2007 by VM, EH, KW
Ground 5: the DBS was wrong to find that he had demonstrated sexualised behaviour in 2007 by VM, EH, KW.
The Appellant’s submission is that in this case the paucity of evidence means that the DBS cannot fairly have rely upon it to demonstrate propensity for the other allegations. This was because the DBS had not seen the witness statements or interviews provided to the police. Furthermore, the DBS had not seen the internal investigation report of the care home when reaching its decision. He states that the police explained that they had dropped the case because of the lack of independent witnesses, CCTV, no forensic evidence, and delay in reporting the offences to management or colleagues or friends, and VM had continued to work alongside the Appellant.
Furthermore, a witness said that he had never witnessed LM kiss EH, and KW did not even present herself to give a statement despite being approached by the police to do so.
We received the following additional information not before the DBS. We summarise these here:
- Heading
- This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 ( “SVGA” )
- Ground One : That the DBS failed to carry out a fair and appropriate information gathering and assessment exercise, in breach of the requirements of natural justice
- DBS’s findings and the Barring Decision
- The statutory framework
- Duty to maintain the Barred Lists
- Criteria for inclusion in the Barred Lists
- Appeals of decisions to include, or not to remove, persons in the Barred Lists
- Ground One – has the DBS made an error of law in its approach to or gathering of evidence about LM’s appeal
- Allegations concerning sexual misconduct
- Allegations concerning LM’s children and relationship with his wife
- In respect of sexual misconduct
- In respect of allegations concerning his children and his wife
- Grounds 2 – 7
- Ground Two: The DBS was wrong to find that LM had slapped his son in 2018
- Ground 3 and Ground 4: The DBS was wrong to find that LM had threatened to kill his partner in 2013 and that LM had hit his partner in 2013
- Grounds 5 – 7: initial considerations on issues of propensity
- Ground Seven: “The DBS was wrong to find LM had demonstrated sexualised behaviours with colleagues in 2018”
- Ground 5: the DBS was wrong to find that he had demonstrated sexualised behaviour in 2007 by VM, EH, KW
- Internal investigation which took place in 2008 about events in 2007
- Ground 6: Sexual assault at a care home in 2013
- Conclusions