![[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
In respect of sexual misconduct
In respect of sexual misconduct
The 2007 allegation. The DBS had relevant information from Surrey Police, and provided two crime reports which record details of the allegations and the reasons why no further action was taken. The DBS accepted the limitations of this material but had sufficient information to make an assessment and determination.
The 2013 allegation. Hampshire Constabulary told the DBS that no MG5 case summary was completed by the officer, and there was no summary of the interview recorded and that as the Appellant had not been charged with any offence, they were unable to provide any witness statements and that there was no further relevant information in their possession for the purposes of the DBS.
The 2018 allegation. Again, Hampshire Constabulary identified that the MG5 and witness statement were not available but did provide a police summary and a record of the Appellant’s interview.
- 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