[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)

The Appellant also argues that there were other mistakes of fact relied upon by the DBS in making the barring decision (either in the Final Decision letter on in the BDP). These errors are highlighted within the Notice and Grounds [p201-202, paras 57 to 60] and further submissions on behalf of the Appellant [p274 to 275].

Ms Bayley submits that there is no sufficient evidence within the papers that DM suffered emotional or physical harm as a result of the Appellant's actions. The Respondent was wrong to conclude in the BDP (although not repeated in the Final Decision Letter) "These incidents have resulted in DM suffering emotional and physical harm" [p232].

She argues that BDP discloses no further evidence or reasoning for the inference that the Appellant "influenced DM into supporting your argument as to why he should be returned to your care, with you yourself gathering this information from DM" or of the Appellant "attempting to influence DM into supporting him being returned to your care". Any such suggestion amounts purely to speculation on behalf of the social work team and should not have been treated as fact by the Respondent and does not amount to "clear information", as set out in the BDP [p225]. This wrongly appears within the SJP as being "central to the harmful behaviour displayed" and wrongly appears as a definite risk factor.

Ms Bayley contends that there is no sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the evaluative judgment in the risk assessment that the it is "likely that you would failed to prioritise the needs of those under your care, be unable or unwilling to engage and follow advice/guidance given by professionals, and would attempt to influence those under your care in order to achieve your own objective". The Respondent was not entitled to come to such conclusions on the basis of the information before it.

She also submits that the SJP makes several references to the Appellant feeling unsupported, despite "a great deal of support being offered". This is considered to be a concern in the risk assessment. There is no explanation for this inference being drawn and no identifiable evidence to support it.

Ms Bayley also contends that there is no reliable evidence of a general disregard on the part of the Appellant to disregard procedures and guidance. Exhibit AVS1 demonstrates that the Appellant was keen to keep social services up to date with any and all relevant information about DM's care. It is clear the Appellant was working well with social services until the relationship broke down shortly before DM's removal from his care.

Given our conclusions concerning the five findings of relevant conduct, there is no need for us to consider these submissions further but they are matters that may be considered by the DBS upon the barring decision being remitted for reconsideration.