[2024] UKUT 344 (AAC)

We acknowledge that DBS’s decision rested on a single incident, in which SCK reacted in a flash of anger to being bitten by a vulnerable adult. However, given the self-evident seriousness, from a safeguarding viewpoint, of what SCK did and said (as found by DBS, and as to which we have found no mistake) in that incident, it cannot be said that DBS’s decision to include SCK in the adults’ barred list was wrong in law by being irrational, perverse, or a decision no reasonable barring body could have made on the evidence before it. As to whether DBS’s decision was disproportionate (and so mistaken in law), proportionality is at heart a balancing exercise, with, on the one side, the risk SCK posed to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults, and, on the other side, the detriment to SCK of his being barred (being that he would be unable to work with vulnerable adults). It is well established that in striking this balance, appropriate weight must be given to DBS’s views on safeguarding risk, as this is its specialist field; as well as to public confidence in the safeguarding of vulnerable persons. In our view, and given that DBS’s decision was a rational one, the balance is struck in favour of avoiding the safeguarding risk posed by SCK. DBS’s decision was not, therefore, mistaken in law by reason of being disproportionate.