![UT UA-2024-000745-V - [2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
UT UA-2024-000745-V - [2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)
Fecha: 28-Mar-2025
Conclusion
Conclusion
So, taken as a whole, we find that the evidence given by the staff and the service users provides a consistent account of what they saw SLS do and what they heard her say. We do not accept SLS’s denials, because the weight of the evidence from all the other witnesses is against her.
We accept that the seven references she has provided give honest accounts of the authors’ experiences of SLS. At the end of the hearing, she told us that DBS’s findings were ‘not the person I am.’ We accept that. There is more to her than those findings. They do, though, matter under DBS’s role, which is to protect children and vulnerable adults.
As our findings are the same as those made by DBS, we have found no mistake of fact in its decision.
- Heading
- On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS from now on)
- Some abbreviations
- Introduction
- The reason for referring the case to DBS
- The barring provisions
- The appeal provisions
- Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Our approach to the case
- Service users
- Members of staff
- SLS’s statement to her employer
- SLS replied within minutes, saying
- SLS’s representations to DBS
- References for SLS
- Our assessment of the evidence
- Conspiracy
- Influencing the service users
- Limiting choices
- Conclusion
- Proportionality
- whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right
- whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective
- whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective
- whether, balancing the severity of the measure's effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its
- Conclusions