Heading

Appeal No. UA-2023-000578-V
Between:
AA
Appellant
- v -
Disclosure and Barring Service
Respondent
Pursuant to rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, without the permission of this Tribunal: No one shall publish or reveal: the name or address of any of: a. the Appellant in these proceedings, who is referred to by the cipher AA; b. the resident who is the subject of allegation 1 found proven by the DBS, who is referred to by the cipher JL; c. members of staff employed by AA’s former employer, who are referred to by one of the following ciphers: JA, JG, LST, LB and VW, or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings. Any breach of this Order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanction under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. |
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Butler, Tribunal Member Graham and
Tribunal Member Smith
Hearing date(s): 27 February 2025
Mode of hearing: Oral hearing at Civil Justice Centre, Manchester
Representation:
Appellant: Ms Laura Bayley (counsel)
Respondent: Mr Andrew Webster (counsel)
On appeal from:
DBS registration number: 00798155005
DBS Decision Date: 16 March 2023
SUMMARY OF DECISION
Keywords: Mistake on point of law (65.5), Finding of fact (65.9)
The DBS’s Barring Decision involved mistakes of fact on which the Barring decision was based and material mistakes of law. Remitted to the DBS to make a fresh decision.
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal and REMIT the matter to the Disclosure and Barring Service for a new decision
- A summary of the factual background
- The Barring Decision
- Appeal grounds
- The Upper Tribunal substantive oral hearing
- The legal framework for Barring Decisions
- AA’s oral evidence
- Assessing the Appellant’s oral evidence
- Mistake of fact argument: Allegation 1
- Did AA fail to seek medical assistance for a change in the behaviour of JL between 11 September 2021 and 04 October 2021?
- Did AA fail to upload documentation onto CMS before 29 September 2021, delaying the diagnosis and treatment of JL’s thrush?
- Mistake of fact argument: allegation 2
- Were mistakes of fact made by the DBS ones on which the Barring Decision was based?
- The error of law arguments
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 225 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)