What this case is about
What this case is about
The Appellant agrees that it would be wrong for a nursing auxiliary to insert their fingers into a patient’s vagina with a view to relieving constipation, and he doesn’t dispute that doing that would amount to ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to vulnerable adults or indeed to children.
However, the Appellant says he did no such thing, and the DBS was mistaken when it found that he had. He says his name should be removed from both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List so that he can continue his career as an auxiliary nurse.
- Heading
- On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service ( “DBS” )
- What this case is about
- DBS’s findings and the Barring Decision
- The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- 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
- The recent authorities on the Upper Tribunal’s ‘mistake of fact’ jurisdiction
- Discussion
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 224 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)