[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)

In respect of the allegations concerning TM (his child) being slapped by LM, the DBS had a chronology from Hampshire Children’s Services, CAF assessments dated November 2019 and August 2020 and a s47 assessment of risk in respect of LM. In summary, the DBS had sufficient information to reach the decision that it did because the CAF assessments indicated that TM had reported being slapped both in 2019 and three times in 2018 and other documents supplied by Hampshire Children’s Services showed consistency.

In respect of the allegation concerning TM being left to look after his brother on his own, the Appellant admitted that this could have happened, and this allegation was not contested in his response.

In respect of the allegation of domestic abuse, that whilst they did not have the underlying referral made to Hampshire Children’s Services for LM and his wife, that an initial assessment was conducted, and information was provided that an outreach support worker had indicated that the Appellant had hit his partner. This information was not provided by Hampshire Constabulary, but the DBS recognised this in making its decision.

It is our conclusion that whilst it is always possible for someone to point to further information or evidence which could be gathered, the question is whether the information so gathered was sufficient for the purposes for which the DBS required it. The DBS is not an investigative body: it is therefore reliant upon information which is provided to it by other (public) bodies. Its role is not to determine the truth or otherwise of matters, but to manage risk based on the information presented to it (R (SXM) v DBS [2020] EHWC 624 [2020] 1 WLR 3359 at 38).

We do not consider that the DBS fell outside the range of a reasonable decision maker in not seeking to see if there was further information beyond that supplied to them by the relevant public bodies. In respect of the sexual misconduct, the Police identified why they did not have further information or why they would not provide it and there was sufficient information about the relevant misconduct and its facts for the DBS to be able to make a risk assessment. As to the issue in respect of the internal report of 2007, the police summary flagged the outcome of the internal investigation which was that there was “insufficient evidence”. In those circumstances, it was not irrational for them not to seek further information about this by way of the internal report.

In respect of the allegations concerning LM and his children, the information from social services was sufficient for an assessment of risk to be made, and included a chronology, CAF assessments and a s47 assessment and relevant family plans. This was, it is submitted, adequate and relevant information required for the DBS to carry out its statutory functions.

In respect of the allegations concerning domestic abuse, the DBS recognised that the information was limited, but it was set out in the chronology supplied by Hampshire and that an initial assessment was carried out at that time by Hampshire in respect of LM’s son and that work was undertaken with the family leading to the allegations that the parents had an argument that father had hit mother. It should be noted that the chronology says:

“Both parents have spoken to the police about the incident.”

If one were pedantic, one would indicate that this does not mean that the police have a record of such, and that no formal complaint was made. Whilst this evidence is not of the highest quality, the question is whether it is sufficient to identify that a risk is present because of domestic abuse. We consider that the evidence is sufficient to reach that conclusion, albeit brief in nature.

We do not consider that the fact that the Appellant could have obtained further information from the police or social services as part of the process of making representations excuses the DBS from making reasonable inquiries. However, we agree with the DBS that if there was contradictory material that would have given the LM an opportunity to present such. The fact that he was not legally represented at that time does not mean that he would not have been able to have written to the police or Hampshire and asked for information directly pertaining to him.

Even if we are wrong about the evidence concerning domestic abuse in 2013, we consider that this is only one part of a complex picture of risky and/or maladaptive behaviours demonstrated by LM, and furthermore, as LM was asking us to make different findings of fact on the basis of further information, this ground of appeal was academic.

We therefore dismiss Ground One.