Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 332 (AAC)

Fecha: 27-Ago-2024

On appeal from: Disclosure and Barring Service ( “DBS” )

On appeal from: Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”)

DBS Reference: P00003MPY6D

Final Decision Letter: 30 August 2022

This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (“SVGA”)

The appeal is allowed.

The decision of the DBS made on 30 August 2022 to place the Appellant’s name on the Children’s Barred List involved a mistake on a point of law.

Pursuant to section 4(6)(b) of SVGA the Upper Tribunal remits the matter to the DBS for a new decision.

The Upper Tribunal directs that the DBS shall not remove the Appellant’s name from the Children’s Barred List pending the making of the new decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

What this case is about

This case concerns allegations that the Appellant, who at the relevant time worked on a largely voluntary basis as an Arabic teacher at a madrassa, sexually assaulted three girls aged 8-9 years old who were pupils at the madrassa.

Despite the Appellant being acquitted of all charges in a Crown Court trial in relation to the allegations, the DBS found the allegations proved on the balance of probabilities, and decided on the basis of those findings to retain his name on the Children’s Barred List.

The SVGA requires the DBS to ask itself three questions when determining whether an individual should be placed on, or should remain on, a barred list:

is it satisfied that the individual engaged has (at any time) engaged in ‘relevant conduct’ (as defined in the SVGA and as explained below)?

does it have reason to believe that the individual is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in ‘regulated activity’ relating to children?

is it satisfied that it is appropriate to include the individual in the list?

If the answer to each of these questions is “yes” it must place, or retain, the individual’s name on the Children’s Barred List.

The Appellant accepts that he has been, and might in the future be, engaged in ‘regulated activity’ and he also accepts that the conduct which the DBS say he engaged in amounts to ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to children for the purposes of the SVGA. However, he says that he did no such thing. He says he didn’t touch the complainant children at all, let alone touch them sexually, and he maintains that they made up the allegations and told lies about him. In the language of the SVGA, he says that the Barring Decision was based on material mistakes of fact.

The Appellant also argues that the DBS made mistakes of law in reaching its decision to include his name on the Children’s Barred List.

The Appellant asks the Upper Tribunal to direct that his name be removed from the Children’s Barred List. He says he has no plans to return to teaching, but he wants to obtain a licence to operate as a black cab driver to support his family better, and having his name on the Children’s Barred List prevents him from doing that.

The DBS resists the appeal, argues that its decision to place the Appellant’s name on the Children’s Barred List, while not perfect, involved no material mistake of fact or law, and says that it should be upheld.