![[2024] UKUT 286 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
DBS’s submissions
DBS’s submissions
Mr Reichhold made oral and written submissions on behalf of the DBS in resisting the appeal, which we set out below. He submitted that it appeared from the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal (“the Grounds”) that her primary contention was that DBS made one or more mistakes of fact in relation to the Catheter Incident [5]-[6].
However, he acknowledged that the Appellant had also been granted permission to appeal in relation to mistake of law [214]. To that end, he addressed both grounds.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal of the Appellant
- Rule 14 Anonymity Orders and directions
- The Background
- The Barring Process
- Findings of Relevant Conduct
- The Final Decision Letter
- Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal
- The evidence in the appeal
- The Appellant’s oral evidence
- Law
- it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct, and
- it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list
- on any point of law
- If the [ Upper] Tribunal remits a matter to [DBS] under subsection (6)(b)–
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- remit the matter to DBS for a new decision
- DBS’s submissions
- No material mistake of fact
- Insufficient Interest Challenge
- Acted on Advice Challenge
- Lack of Training Challenge
- Lack of Time Challenge
- Other matters
- No mistake of law
- Discussion: Findings of Fact and Analysis of grounds of appeal
- Ground 1
- Mistake of fact: second finding of relevant conduct – Finding 2
- Mistake of Law - Proportionality
- are they no more than are necessary to accomplish it?
- Conclusions