![[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
Upper Tribunal Member Jacoby
Upper Tribunal Member Smith
Hearing: 12 July 2024, Rolls Building, central London
Representation:
Appellant: Laura Bayley, of counsel, instructed by Star Legal Solicitors
Respondent: Ashley Serr, of counsel, instructed by solicitor to DBS
On appeal from:
Decision-maker: Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS)
DBS reference: 00944631125
Decision date: 31 December 2022
SUMMARY OF DECISION
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Children’s Barred List
Adults’ Barred List.
- 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