![[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground One – has the DBS made an error of law in its approach to or gathering of evidence about LM’s appeal
Ground One – has the DBS made an error of law in its approach to or gathering of evidence about LM’s appeal.
The Appellant’s submissions (set out in the “Response on behalf of LM” and the “Perfected grounds of appeal” filed by LM and submitted by Counsel on LM’s behalf are, in brief that:
- 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