[2025] UKUT 113 (AAC)

We had ample opportunity to assess the Appellant’s evidence, albeit we accept it was given in a stressful environment. His opening submissions, in which he explained the background to his breakdown and the course of the police investigation, and set out his reasons for challenging the DBS’s barring decision, took approximately 45 minutes. He was then cross-examined by Mr Webster on behalf of the DBS for just under 1 hour 15 minutes. On two occasions the Appellant declined the offer of an opportunity to take a break in the proceedings.

We recognise that the Appellant faced a difficult task in remembering details of events from nearly seven years ago. However, even making allowances for that, the Appellant’s evidence was not persuasive in many respects. On critical issues his answers were at best vague – on several occasions his response to a pointed question from Mr Webster was that “I can’t recall”. His various attempted explanations for the electronic messaging with Witness A were, as Mr Webster argued, something of a “moveable feast”. In addition, we bear in mind that at the time in question the Appellant was, mentally speaking, in a very dark place, as well as acting under the influence of both alcohol and drug abuse.

We recall that in DBS v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95 Males LJ observed as follows (at [55]), namely that where an appellant gives oral evidence before the Upper Tribunal

In short, the Appellant’s oral evidence and cross-examination in this case did not go well.

In contrast, we therefore emphasise at the outset that we were impressed by the TRA panel’s careful consideration of the documentary evidence. For the reasons that follow, we did not find that the TRA’s findings were in any way undermined by the Appellant’s oral evidence before us. As such, the DBS was entitled to place reliance on the TRA’s findings to the extent that it did.