![[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the Appellant’s appeal against the first decision of the DBS dated 13 July 2022 is allowed in part. There was a mistake of law in including him on the Children’s Barred List. The Tribunal directs that he be removed from the Children’s Barred List. However, there was no mistake of fact nor law in the decision to include him on the Adults’ Barred List. His inclusion on that list is confirmed.
The Appellant’s appeal against the second decision of the DBS dated 3 March 2023 is dismissed. There was no mistake of fact or law in the decision to include him on the Adults’ Barred List. The decision to include him on that list is confirmed.
Judge Rupert Jones
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 16 June 2025
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the Appellant’s appeal against the first decision of the DBS dated 13 July 2022 is allowed in part. There was a mistake of law in including him on the Childr
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Factual background
- The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 1
- The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 2
- The procedure in relation to the Appeal to the UT
- The CCTV Footage
- Legal framework
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- Relevant general tests/principles
- The grounds of appeal and the Appellant’s submissions
- Facts Found
- Discussion and Analysis
- The 8 grounds of appeal for which permission was granted
- Ground 2 – whether MC “invaded” W’s personal space etc
- Ground 3 – whether MC had no regard to what the manager had said etc
- Ground 4 – whether MC had caused “emotional harm” to W etc
- Ground 5 – whether MC failed to report and/or concealed his conduct etc
- Ground 6 – whether MC had demonstrated “callousness” etc
- Ground 7 – whether there was a “significant risk” of future harm etc
- Ground 8 – in relation to the “transferability” to children etc
- The three grounds of appeal pursued at the hearing
- Issue 1 : Whether the DBS applied the correct statutory test and evidential threshold in deciding to bar the Appellant, including whether it adequately considered mitigating evidence or contradictory
- Issue 2 Proportionality issue : Whether the indefinite bar constitutes a disproportionate interference with the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)
- Allowing in part the appeal against Decision 1 – inclusion on the Children’s Barred List
- Conclusions