[2024] UKUT 332 (AAC)

Following the Appellant’s acquittal in the Crown Court trial, the DBS reviewed the evidence and wrote the Appellant a ‘minded to bar’ letter informing him that it was minded to place his name on the Children’s Barred List and inviting him to make representations should he disagree with his proposed inclusion. Having received no representations from the Appellant, the DBS completed its decision-making process, deciding to place the Appellant’s name on the Children’s Barred List (the “Initial Barring Decision”).

The Initial Barring Decision was communicated in a ‘final decision letter’ dated 8 November 2018, but it appears that while the letter was sent by DBS it was not received by the Appellant. The Appellant was unaware that his name had been placed on any barred list until he applied for a job with Transport for London. When he became aware that his name was on the Children’s Barred List he was given permission to make late representations against his barring, which he duly did.

The DBS reviewed the evidence, considered the Appellant’s representations, and issued a ‘minded to retain’ letter setting out its findings and inviting him to make further representations, which he duly did. Following a review of the further representations and all the written evidence the DBS made a new decision on the papers. It explained its decision and the reasons for it in a ‘final decision letter’ dated 30 August 2022. It decided that it was appropriate for the Appellant’s name to remain on the Children’s Barred List (the “Barring Decision”). It based the Barring Decision (which was addressed to the Appellant and so refers to him as “you”) on new primary findings of fact (which differed from the findings of fact on which the Initial Barring Decision was made, including in that they related to sexual touching of three children, while the Initial Barring Decision was based on findings of sexual touching of five children).

The primary findings of fact upon which the Barring Decision was based are:

“1.

On Monday 21st March 2016, while teaching at the BWC you sexually abused KJ (8y old girl) by: unzipping her jacket, touching and squeezing her bottom and breasts with both hands, and touching/scratching her vaginal area over the top of her clothing.

2.

On more than one occasion between June 2015 and the 23rd March 2016, whilst teaching at the BWC, you sexually abused KJ (8y old girl) by: unzipping her jacket, touching and squeezing her bottom and breasts with both hands over the top of her clothing.

3.

On more than one occasion between 7th and 23rd of March 2016, while teaching at the BWC you sexually abused MB (9y old girl) by: unzipping her jacket, touching and squeezing her bottom and breasts with both hands over the top of her clothing, and on one occasion kissed her on the cheek.

4.

On an unspecified single occasion prior to the 23rd March 2016, while teaching at the BWC you tickled MT (8y old female child) on the stomach area” (together, the “Primary Findings of Fact”).

Based on these primary findings it made secondary findings by inference that:

The Barring Decision (not the Initial Barring Decision) is the decision under appeal.