Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 069 (AAC)

Fecha: 20-Ene-2025

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

The decision was made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the children’s barred list if

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,

it has reason to believe that the person is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraph 4, “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 3 includes

conduct which endangers a child or is likely to endanger a child; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a child if he (amongst other things)

harms a child

ii.

causes a child to be harmed

iii.

puts a child at risk of harm or

iv.

attempts to harm a child; and

conduct of a sexual nature involving a child, if it appears to DBS that the conduct is inappropriate.

The letter (“DBS’s decision letter”) conveying DBS’s decision made the following factual findings, in support of its conclusion that DGW had engaged in relevant conduct:

in March 2002 DGW was convicted at a crown court of ‘abducting an unmarried girl under 16’; the context for this was that, prior to a date in May 2001, DGW on several occasions, and without cause or permission, took a 14 year old girl away from her carers at a residential unit for children, in his car, whilst knowing her age, and despite warnings from police;

at various unknown times in 2001, DGW bought alcohol and, on at least one occasion, cannabis, for the 14 year old girl (whom he knew to be underage);

from approximately January 2001, when DGW was aged 26, DGW befriended the 14 year old girl, who was at a residential unit for children, and over a period of months developed an inappropriate and sexual relationship with her.

DBS’s decision letter also made further findings, as follows:

that concerns remained that information in the case indicated that DGW was of the belief that children he knew to be under 16 were able to consent to sex;

that the information indicated that

DGW had sex on two occasions with the 14 year old girl (when was aged 26);

ii.

a woman who was DGW’s girlfriend at the time told the police that DGW had begun having sex with her when she was aged 15½ and when DGW would have been aged around 20/21; and

iii.

DGW told someone that he wanted a relationship with the 14 year old girl and did not think the age difference mattered;

that DGW demonstrated an attitude that it was ok for him, as an adult, to have frequent communication with a 14 year old girl who was residing at a local authority residential unit;

that DGW would frequently take the 14 year old girl, and on occasion other children, out in his car without permission or authority from her care givers;

that DGW would play loud music and rev his engine to attract attention; when staff (from the residential care unit) confronted him that it was inappropriate for him to be there, he told them to 'fuck off and get back in' and laughed; this was also despite being warned by police not to have any contact with the 14 year old girl or other children at the residential care unit;

that DGW had an attitude that he would do what he wanted, irrespective of the safety or concern for others; and

that in knowingly giving and allowing alcohol to be consumed by a child, DGW failed to take responsibility for his actions or act responsibly as an adult.

DBS’s decision letter said that it was unknown what DGW had done in the years since 2001 but it was of concern that DGW could repeat this behaviour in future if he was in a situation where he considered that a child under 16 was able to consent to and enjoy sex in the same way as an adult.