[2025] UKUT 86 (AAC)

The first ground of appeal is that the appellant says that DBS failed to provide with the Minded to Bar letter the documents (Annex A) and CCTV footage on which it was relying, so that she did not have an opportunity to make representations on those materials, or to obtain responsive evidence. In granting permission to appeal, Judge Stout observed that a failure to provide Annex A or the CCTV footage may also amount to a breach of the requirement on DBS under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 to give a person the opportunity to make representations in relation to “all” of the information on which DBS intends to rely.

DBS denies that there was any failure to provide the appellant with either the documents or access to the CCTV footage. DBS submits that, even if Annex A was not included with the Minded to Bar letter, the appellant had all the information she needed in the Minded to Bar letter itself. DBS submits that there was no failure to comply with paragraph 16(1) or, at least, that there was no material unfairness. DBS argues that paragraph 16(1) creates a procedural obligation to provide an opportunity to comment on information and that it does not create a disclosure obligation.