[2025] UKUT 225 (AAC)

Having considered evidence that was not before the DBS, which we found to be credible, we have found that the DBS made mistakes of fact on which the Barring Decision was based, We have also found that the DBS made errors of law that were material.

Where the Upper Tribunal finds that the DBS has made mistakes of fact on which the Barring Decision was based and / or material mistakes of law, the Upper Tribunal must either direct the DBS to remove the person from the list or remit the matter back to the DBS for a new decision.

In the circumstances, we have decided, in accordance with section 4(6) and (7) of the SVGA 2006, to remit this matter to the DBS to decide afresh whether to make a Barring Decision. Applying the principles in DBS v AB, we are not satisfied that no other decision than removal is possible on the facts. However, applying section 4(7)(b) of the SVGA 2006, AA must be removed from the Adults Barred List and the Childrens Barred List until DBS makes its new decision.

In the circumstances, we have decided it is not appropriate to address the proportionality argument raised by AA. This is because we have concluded this matter should be remitted to the DBS to consider afresh whether any of the allegations are made out. The proportionality of any Barring Decision will have to be considered in light of what the DBS decides to do, including any factual findings it makes about the allegations previously addressed. We therefore do not consider it necessary to invite the parties to make representations to the Upper Tribunal about proportionality.