[2024] UKUT 332 (AAC)

the DBS’s Primary Findings of Fact are mistaken and are also irrational on the evidence, and therefore in mistake of law, and given these flaws in the Primary Findings of Fact, the Secondary Findings of Fact made based on those flawed findings are unsustainable (“Ground 1”).

the DBS failed to have regard to relevant factors in reaching its finding that the Appellant had engaged in ‘relevant conduct’ (including failing to refer in its structured judgment process document to the Appellant’s good character, the trial judge’s comments about his credibility, the weight given to the “not guilty” verdicts following testing of the allegations at the criminal trial), the weight given to the admission that complainants KJ and MB spoke to each other about the allegations prior to the disclosure, the lack of evidence of prior sexually inappropriate conduct, the fact that there was no CCTV footage to substantiate the allegations, and there being significant differences between the complainants’ evidence in their written statements and their oral evidence at trial) (“Ground 2”),

the DBS made a procedural error amounting to a material mistake of law in completing its structured judgment process without first having obtained the transcripts of the criminal proceedings (“Ground 3”),

even if the DBS was entitled to make the findings that it did, the Appellant’s continued inclusion in the Children’s Barred List represented a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 right to respect for his private and family life, and was in error of law (“Ground 4”).