![[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service
Between:
LMM
Appellant
- v -
The Disclosure and Barring Service
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Scolding KC, Tribunal Member Rachael Smith, and Tribunal Member Matthew Turner
Hearing dates: 14 June 2024 (adjourned) and 27 September 2024
Decision date: 20 November 2024
Representation:
Appellant: The Appellant was unrepresented
Respondent: Ms. Masood of counsel, instructed by DLA Piper LLP, represented the Respondent.
Anonymity order
Pursuant to an order made by the Upper Tribunal on 5 July 2023 the name of the appellant, his wives and his children are prohibited from publication or any matter likely to lead members to identify any of these individuals. Any breach of the order is a contempt of court and can lead to imprisonment under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
DECISION
- 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