Conclusions
Disposal
The material errors of law that we have identified make it appropriate to allow the appeal.
Had we decided that the DBS had based the Barring Decision on material mistakes of fact and that, had those mistakes not been made it would have been bound to remove AA’s name from the Children’s Barred List we would have directed his removal from the list. However, since we are not so persuaded, it is appropriate to remit the matter back to the DBS to make a fresh decision. The DBS will not be bound by any of the previous decision maker’s findings.
We direct that AA’s name shall not be removed from the Children’s Barred List pending the remaking of the Barring Decision.
Thomas Church
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Tribunal Member Jacoby
Tribunal Member Turner
Authorised for issue on
18 October 2024
Corrected on 30 October 2024
- Heading
- On appeal from: Disclosure and Barring Service ( “DBS” )
- Factual background, and the decision under appeal
- The permission stage
- The Appellant’s perfected grounds of appeal
- The statutory framework relating to barring
- Duty to maintain the Barred Lists
- Criteria for inclusion in the Barred Lists
- Appeals of decisions to include, or not to remove, persons in the Barred Lists
- The recent authorities on the Upper Tribunal’s ‘mistake of fact’ jurisdiction
- The oral hearing of the substantive appeal
- Our assessment of AA’s oral evidence
- Why we have decided to allow the appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 332 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)