[2025] UKUT 113 (AAC)

The Appellant advanced several other arguments. He helpfully provided a skeleton argument for the oral hearing setting out in a systematic way his main submissions in support of his appeal. We deal with each of those six heads in the following section.

First, the Appellant argues that the outcome of his case was predetermined given the wording of the final decision letter closely mirrored that of the preceding minded to bar letter. We reject the inference that the Appellant seeks to draw. It is only fair and right that a person at risk of being barred should be given the opportunity to make representations about the DBS’s provisional findings. The statutory scheme requires the DBS to ‘put its cards on the table’ and so explain the basis for that provisional view. The Barring Decision Summary document shows that those representations were conscientiously considered by the relevant DBS officer before reaching a final decision. The similarity in wording simply reflects the fact that those representations were found to be not persuasive – they are not indicative of pre-judgement.

Second, the Appellant points out that the DBS decided to take no action when reviewing his case in 2020 and 2022 and yet made a barring decision in 2023 “despite no new evidence emerging”, at least according to the Appellant. There are two reasons why this argument is misconceived. First, it is clear that as a matter of principle the DBS can revisit a case which it has previously closed as not requiring a barring decision following a first consideration (see e.g. SV v DBS [2022] UKUT 55 (AAC) and MS v DBS [2022] UKUT 184 (AAC)). Secondly, and in any event, the DBS did have new evidence – it had the TRA panel’s detailed analysis of the sexualised app messaging and now, in addition, had the two witness statements from the investigating detective (and not simply the police summary).

Third, the Appellant deals with the allegation of possession of IIOC. We need say no more about that matter, given our findings above.

Fourth, the Appellant makes several points in relation to the disputed electronic messages and their context. We have also dealt with these issues above and so again need say no more about the subject.

Fifth, the Appellant deals with the caution for possession of Class A drugs. The DBS was entitled to have regard to this as part of the overall background of the case. That said, the police caution did not play a major part in the DBS’s thinking – as Mr Webster put it, the caution was not a central plank of the DBS case. We concur that it did not ‘tip the balance’ one way or the other.

Lastly, the Appellant refers to what he describes as the “lack of witness testimony and evidence gaps” in the case. In particular, he points out that neither the police detective nor Witness A gave live evidence at the TRA hearing. Whilst that was undoubtedly the case, the TRA panel undertook a careful and detailed analysis of the documentary evidence in the light of the Appellant’s written representations before reaching its conclusions. They also, of course, did not have the benefit of oral evidence from the Appellant. However, we have had that oral evidence but found it to be wanting for the reasons outlined above.