![[2024] UKUT 379 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 ( “SVGA” )
This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (“SVGA”)
The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
What this case is about
This case is an appeal about the DBS decision to place the Appellant, who I shall call LM on the Adult and Children’s Barred List on 11 August 2022. The Appellant appeals against that decision. He provided written evidence and gave oral evidence at the hearing on 27 September 2024, as did his wife, who I shall call CP. There was also written evidence from someone who had worked with LM concerning one of the incidents upon which the DBS had relied.
This appeal concerns issues of error of law and also the mistake of fact jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal. There are a number of grounds of appeal. They are as follows:
- 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