![[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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
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.
The Upper Tribunal directs that the Appellant’s name is removed from both the Adults’ Barred list and the Children’s Barred List.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
This appeal is about whether the Disclosure and Barring Service (the “DBS”) was mistaken when it found that RW acted in an abusive way towards AG, a vulnerable adult in her care.
We had evidence that the DBS didn’t have when it made its decision to place RW’s name on the barred lists. That evidence included hearing RW give her account of what happened at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, where the tribunal and the barrister for the DBS had the opportunity to ask her questions to test whether she was telling the truth, and whether her account was reliable.
We believed RW and we decided that the DBS was wrong to find that she had done what she was accused of. We have told the DBS to take RW’s name off the barred lists.
- 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