UT UA-2024-000745-V - [2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)

whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective

In the second ground for permission, Judge Jacobs referred to the email exchange when SLS resigned from EC. He suggested that the offer of a discussion may have meant that some alternative short of resignation might have been possible. Training was one possibility. If so, that could be a less intrusive measure. Mr Wilkinson argued that this could not be considered, as DBS had no power to order it. We accept that DBS has no power to order training. We do not, though, accept that a less intrusive measure has to be one that DBS can provide. DBS has only two options: to include or not to include a person in a barred list. Given its limited powers, it would never be able to provide a less intrusive measure. That measure must always be provided by someone else, possibly from another regulator.

We do, though, accept Mr Wilkinson’s argument that GD was not considering moving SLS to another property. SLS had been suspended. She told us that she suspected GD would offer her that option, as that had happened at Property X. We do not know what GD had in mind when she offered a discussion. The offer is not evidence of any possible less intrusive measure. Training, even if it would be effective, is not something available on the evidence.