[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)

In this case the DBS relied upon the “relevant conduct” gateway. That required the DBS to be ‘satisfied’ of three things:

If the DBS was satisfied of all three matters above, it was required to place RW’s name on both barred lists.

RW does not dispute that the ‘regulated activity’ requirement is met in this case by reason of her work as a support worker to vulnerable adults at the Care Home, so item a. in paragraph [8] above is not in issue.

Whether RW engaged in ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to vulnerable adults is the key issue in this appeal.

Although RW says it was neither appropriate nor proportionate to place her name on any barred list, she does not dispute that the conduct that the DBS found her to have engaged in would make barring appropriate and proportionate. However, her case is that she didn’t engage in ‘relevant conduct’ because each of the Allegations was false, and because of this there was no basis for her name being placed on any barred list.

Those unfamiliar with this jurisdiction may wonder why the DBS argues that RW engaged in ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to children, given that the allegations relate to her conduct in relation to an adult in his 50s. The reason for this is the way that ‘relevant conduct’ in relation to children is defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act. That definition includes “conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that child or would be likely to endanger him” (see paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act, emphasis added). There doesn’t need to be any conduct that has actually involved children.