The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
In this case the DBS relied upon the ‘relevant conduct’ gateway. That required the DBS to be ‘satisfied’ of three things:
that the Appellant was at the relevant time, had in the past been, or might in future be ‘engaged’ in, ‘regulated activity’ in relation to vulnerable adults (see paragraph 9(3)(aa) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA);
that the Appellant had ‘engaged’ in (see paragraph 9(3)(a) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA) ‘relevant conduct’ (defined in paragraph 4); and
that it was ‘appropriate’ to include the Appellant on the Adults’ Barred List (see paragraph 9(3)(b) of Schedule 3 to the SVGA).
If the DBS was satisfied of all three matters above, it was required to place RM’s name on the Adults’ Barred List.
The Appellant accepts that the ‘regulated activity’ requirement is met in this case by reason of her having worked as a care assistant, so there is no issue with regards to 20 a. above.
With regard to the issue at 20 b., the Appellant’s case was that she had not engaged in the conduct alleged. In her grounds of appeal she did not argue that the alleged conduct would not amount to ‘relevant conduct’ for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the SVGA.
In terms of issue c. in paragraph 20 above, ‘appropriateness’ is not a matter for the Upper Tribunal unless the decision-making around appropriateness is irrational (see below).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service was not based on any mistake in any finding of fact and involved no mistake on any point
- Introduction
- Factual background
- The permission stage
- The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the SVGA
- The relevant authorities
- The Appellant’s evidence at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal
- The parties’ positions in summary
- Analysis Mistake of fact?
- Mistake of law?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 079 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)