[2025] UKUT 113 (AAC)

The first error of law ground of appeal is that the DBS failed to consider the character references and related materials provided by the Appellant in support of his representations. However, the DBS acknowledged that there had been no safeguarding concerns in relation to the Appellant’s behaviour and conduct in his former teaching roles. The weight to be attached to such character references was ultimately a matter for the DBS to determine. Furthermore, and in any event, such materials did not directly undermine the evidence pertaining to the relevant conduct allegations considered by the DBS.

The second error of law ground of appeal is that the DBS is said to have placed too much reliance on the TRA’s findings without considering the actual evidence considered by the TRA. However, as the Upper Tribunal noted in LMM v DBS [2024] UKUT 379 (AAC), “whilst it is always possible for someone to point to further information or evidence which could be gathered, the question is whether the information so gathered was sufficient for the purposes for which the DBS required it. The DBS is not an investigative body: it is therefore reliant upon information which is provided to it by other (public) bodies” (at paragraph 46). In any event, this ground falls away now that the evidence before the TRA has been made available to this Tribunal. Furthermore, at the material time the evidence in question had been in the possession of the Appellant and he could have disclosed it to the DBS in its entirety rather than in selected snippets.

The third error of law ground of appeal is that the DBS is said to have attached too much significance to the (admitted) possession of a Class A drug and/or failed to have proper regard to the context and to the low risk of recidivism. However, this submission is not made out on closer scrutiny. The DBS did not rely on the Appellant’s past drug abuse as ‘relevant conduct’ and acknowledged that there was no evidence that his previous drug abuse had interfered with his professional duties. Rather, the DBS had placed some reliance on the Appellant’s use of drugs as a factor to be taken into account in the structured judgement process. It is axiomatic that the assessment of the level of risk involved in such matters is primarily a matter for the judgement of the DBS.

It follows that we conclude that none of the error of law grounds of appeal succeeds.