UT UA-2024-000745-V - [2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)
Fecha: 28-Mar-2025
Heading

The Upper Tribunal | UT NCN:[2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)
|
Summary: Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (65.8 and 65.9)
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 - section 4(2)(a) – the Upper Tribunal made its own assessment of the evidence as a whole – no mistake of fact identified in DBS’s findings – section 4(2)(b) – proportionality – the Upper Tribunal assessed for itself the proportionality of DBS’s decision – no mistake of law identified – DBS’s decision confirmed.
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACOBS
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS JOSEPHINE HEGGIE AND JOHN HUTCHINSON
Between
SLS | Appellant |
v | |
Disclosure and Barring Service | Respondent |
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, without the permission of this Tribunal: No one shall publish or reveal the name or address of any of the following: (a) SLS, who is the Appellant in these proceedings; (b) any of the service users or members of staff mentioned in the documents or during the hearing; or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings. Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. |
Decided on following an oral hearing on 28 March 2025
Representatives | |
Appellant | Not represented |
Disclosure and Barring Service | Timothy Wilkinson of counsel, instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP |
Decision of the Upper Tribunal
- 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