[2025] UKUT 329 (AAC)

The first ground of appeal is that DBS arguably made a mistake of fact in finding that the Appellant’s May 2000 conviction was part of a pattern of threatening and violent behaviour. It seems that all DBS knew about this incident was that the Appellant had been cautioned for the offence provided for by section 4A(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986. That offence is framed as follows:

“(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)…

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”

Section 4A(1)(a) of the 1986 Act covers a multitude of wrongdoing. At the less serious end of the spectrum, it describes a person who, with the intent to cause alarm, uses insulting words that alarm another person. At the more serious end, section 4A(1)(a) describes a person who, with intent to cause distress, uses threatening words or behaviour that distress another person.

DBS knew nothing of the circumstances of the May 2000 caution (“the context of which is not known”: see barring decision letter) yet they found it to be part of “a pattern of threatening and violent behaviour”. That might be a sustainable finding had the May 2000 caution related, for instance, to threatening behaviour that intentionally caused another distress. DBS seem to have assumed that the caution must have been given in response to some sort of threatening behaviour. Arguably, that was a mistake of fact because DBS knew nothing of what the Appellant did to justify the caution. Alternatively, DBS arguably erred in law by failing to give adequate reasons for their finding that the May 2000 caution was given due to the Appellant’s threatening behaviour.