![[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Judicial summary
Judicial summary
DBS’ barring decisions involved errors of law in that DBS’ analysis of the evidence failed to take into account a number of relevant considerations. The Upper Tribunal remits the matter to DBS to reconsider the Appellant’s barring, and its new decision must be based on the findings of fact set out in the Upper Tribunal’s reasons for its decision.
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the Upper Tribunal panel follow.
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal.Under section 4(6)(b) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the Upper Tribunal remits this matter to DBS for a new decision. By virtue of section 4(7)(a) of the 2006 Act, the new decision must be based on the findings of fact set out in paragraph 147 of the Upper Tribunal’s reasons for its decision.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
In these reasons:
“2006 Act” means the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;
“DBS” means Disclosure and Barring Service;
“Home 1” is the establishment referred to in paragraph 2 of these reasons;
“Home 2” is the establishment referred to in paragraph 10 of these reasons;
references to pages are to pages of the Upper Tribunal bundle.
- Heading
- Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
- Judicial summary
- Factual background
- Allegations 2 and 3 – failing to support young people in line with care plans and failure to follow safeguarding procedures (night of 6/7 November 2020), and prior failure to report a safeguarding con
- under the heading “ SS [social worker from placing local authority] questioned the processes in place to ensure bank staff members were fully informed of young people’s individual needs and care plans
- DBS’ decision making
- Representations against barring
- there were inaccuracies in the record of the ‘informal conversation’ with the manager of Home 2
- at Home 1, the Appellant was allowed to use the lounge at night because the office was very cold
- the LADO’s recommendations for increased safety measures at Home 2 supported the Appellant’s version of events
- DBS’ decision
- Incident at Home 1 (Finding 1)
- Incidents at Home 2 (Findings 2 and 3)
- “on an un-specified date, you failed to follow reporting procedures after noticing a
- “you have engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children and vulnerable adults”
- “In consideration of your Article 8 rights the following has been considered
- Legal framework
- Grounds of appeal and the parties’ arguments
- DBS’ barring decision making process document (BDMP) contained “no evidential analysis”
- there is no limit to the form that a mistake of fact may take including an incomplete finding or omission or an inferential finding such as a person’s state of mind (intentions, motives, beliefs): see
- Appellant’s witness statement
- at Home 2, no one ever told him that young people in his care displayed sexualised behaviour
- Appellant’s oral evidence: examination-in-chief
- Appellant’s oral evidence: re-examination
- Closing submissions
- DBS
- any mistake of fact must be material to the barring decision
- Closing submissions
- Analysis
- Findings 2 and 3
- Finding 2
- failing to make records of activities during the night shift (BDMP document)
- Finding 3
- Conclusions