[2025] UKUT 86 (AAC)

Again, we take this briefly. The appellant’s ground 7 complained that she should not have been included on the children’s barred list because the allegations against her concerned an adult and she never had any allegations against her concerning children, had never worked with children and considered it unlikely she would work with children.

First, as Judge Stout indicated when granting permission, there is no question that DBS was entitled to conclude that the appellant had engaged in “relevant conduct” relating to children because, by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(b), conduct against an adult “which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that child or would be likely to endanger him” constitutes relevant conduct in relation to a child. We are satisfied that DBS rightly concluded that the appellant’s conduct towards VA would, if repeated against a child, be likely to endanger him/her.

Secondly, the point that Judge Stout considered arguable when granting permission was that it might have been irrational for DBS to conclude, for the purposes, of paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii) that the appellant “has been, or might in future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children” merely because she had previously applied for a role of “Child and Adult Workforce Healthcare Assistant”. However, as a panel we are satisfied that this was not irrational. The legislation requires only that the appellant “might” in future work with children; that requires only a realistic possibility, not anything more than that. If somebody has applied for one role that included the word “Child” in the title, it is not irrational to conclude that they may in future apply for others and that accordingly they might in future work with children.