![[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Appeal No. UA-2024-001121-V
Between:
RW
Appellant
- v -
DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church and Tribunal Members Hutchinson and Smith
Hearing date(s): 11 March 2025
Mode of hearing: Remote oral hearing by CVP
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Steven Gooden of Standley & Co., solicitors
Respondent: Mr Ben Fullbrook of counsel, instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP
On appeal from: The Disclosure and Barring Service
Case No: 01006575770
Decision Date: 5 April 2024
SUMMARY OF DECISION
SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS (65)] (65.1 Children’s Barred List; 65.2 Adults’ Barred List)
The issue in this appeal was whether the DBS’s decision to place the Appellant’s name on both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List was based on a mistake or mistakes of fact.
The Upper Tribunal decided that it was.
The decision is mainly about how to assess the probative value of evidence.
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision of 5 April 2024 was based on material mistakes of fact
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 2006 Act
- The relevant authorities
- The Barring Decision
- The Evidence
- SB’s evidence
- AG’s evidence
- RW’s evidence
- RW’s disciplinary interview
- DBS’s evaluation of the evidence
- Summary of DBS’s case before the Upper Tribunal
- Summary of RW’s case before the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence
- Corroboration provided by AG’s evidence
- Impact of inconsistencies on RW’s credibility, and RW’s live evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- RW’s failure to report her concerns about SB
- No reason to doubt SB’s evidence
- The Upper Tribunal’s assessment of DBS’s findings of fact, and the Upper Tribunal’s own findings of fact
- Allegation 1: “Shouted at resident AG”
- Allegation 2: “threatened to knock AG out, pointing a finger in his face”
- Allegation 3: “told AG to shut up, to go to his room and to stay there”
- Allegation 4: “pushed AG with both hands in his back down the hallway, causing him to stumble”
- Conclusions