“you have engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children and vulnerable adults”
“you have engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children and vulnerable adults”;
“It is acknowledged that you have worked in regulated activity for a number of years and the positive feedback from professional peers who all have significant experience in safeguarding has been fully considered, however concerns are raised in your lack of remorse or insight for your actions, which resulted in two vulnerable children being left naked in a room, further evidenced by your response after being told of the incident, ‘I don’t know how long this will take as I have other commitments that are equally as important after this meeting’ and your previous statement that you would not do anything differently, even though a service user was left outside their home in the early hours of the morning”;
“due to the repeated nature of the incidents, significant concerns are raised that you would not change any of the behaviours that led to vulnerable Children being exposed to significant harm and the DBS are satisfied that if you were to continue in regulated activity with vulnerable groups you may continue to put your own needs ahead of people in your care, including vulnerable adults and this failure to safeguard would always expose both Children and Vulnerable Adults to significant risk of emotional and physical harm. Therefore, the DBS are satisfied that it is appropriate to include you in the Children’s and Adult’s Barred Lists”;
- 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
![[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)