![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
Proportionality
Proportionality
The background to proportionality is SLS’s Article 8 Convention right as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998:
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
DBS’s decision was in accordance with the law, as it was authorised by SVGA. The issue for us is whether it was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of protecting the health of children and vulnerable adults and protecting their rights and freedoms, including their Article 8 rights.
We assessed the proportionality of DBS’s decision for ourselves as required by KS v Disclosure and Barring Service [2025] UKUT 45 (AAC). We did so on the facts as found by DBS. The four elements of the assessment were set out by Lord Reed in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700 at [74]:
- 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