[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)

We had the benefit of all the evidence that was before the DBS when it made the Barring Decision. This was the paper evidence at pages 21-115 of the Upper Tribunal Bundle.

We also had the advantage of additional paper evidence that was not before the DBS, namely RW’s UT10 application form (at pages 2-9 of the Upper Tribunal bundle), a letter in support of RW’s appeal from her mother, who is employed by the same care provider for whom RW worked until her dismissal (at pages 13-14 of the Upper Tribunal bundle), RW’s appeal letter (at page 15 of the Upper Tribunal bundle) and two email references (one dated 3 March 2025 from ML, the manager at the care provider for whom RW worked until her dismissal, and one dated 2 March 2025 from the mother of a child with whom RW was friends at school).

Finally, we had the benefit of RW’s oral evidence at the hearing.

Our task was to consider all the evidence and to decide whether the Barring Decision was based on any mistake of fact.

We took the Barring Decision as our ‘starting point’, in accordance with the approach approved in PF.

We were not impressed by the DBS’s explanation in its Barring Process Summary of its evaluation of the evidence. It appears to have preferred SB’s evidence to RW’s on four bases: