[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

Following a hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel, Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway granted the Appellant permission to appeal against DBS’ barring decisions. The Judge’s permission determination read as follows:

“5.

I am persuaded, bearing in mind the relatively low threshold for the giving of permission, that the DBS’s findings as set out above, are arguably mistaken. I am also persuaded that the outcome reached by the DBS, even if there was no mistake of fact, is disproportionate.

6.

Permission is given, and the grant is not limited.”

We are certain that, in the final sentence of paragraph 5 of the judge’s permission determination, he intended to say that the outcome reached by the DBS was arguably disproportionate, and that is how we read the determination.

Following Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway’s retirement, case management responsibility for this case was transferred to Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell.

In relation to Finding 1, the Appellant argues:

DBS placed disproportionate weight on his former employer’s conclusions;