[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)

Ground 7 is set out at para 13(7) of the Grounds.

In light of the CCTV and the Relevant Conduct, MC, we are satisfied that it was reasonable for the DBS to conclude that MC posed “a” significant risk of future harm to vulnerable groups, especially given the insufficient evidence regarding insight, remediation, etc; and the inconsistent explanations he provided to DBS at the time of the barring decisions. The level of that risk was a matter for DBS to consider, as part of its assessment of the appropriateness of including MC on the barred list(s).

Sufficient reasoning was provided by DBS, when the whole of the Decisions, and the associated rationale documents, are taken properly into account. The DBS Decisions as to the risk MC posed were not irrational.

The DBS was entitled to take into account when making its expert risk assessment that the Incident was serious and aggravated. MC was agitated, invading W’s personal space and threatening serious violence against a vulnerable user. Thereafter MC told a lie to GS about what W had said. This is troubling as MC sought to cover up or minimise the Incident and it cannot be said that this was said in the heat of the moment. The DBS was entitled to take this into account as demonstrating a lack of insight by MC and raising a significant risk of repetition.

The extent of the future risk MC posed would only be found to contain a mistake of law if it was irrational. We are satisfied it was not. The Tribunal gives weight to the DBS’s role as the expert assessor of risk. While we take into account the substantial mitigation set out below, which we consider in relation to proportionality, and the remorse the Appellant undoubtedly feels about the Incident, we do not consider that the DBS was bound to find that he posed no future risk of harm to vulnerable adults.

There was no mistake of law in the DBS concluding that MC posed a significant risk of future harm. It was premised on findings of fact which contained no mistakes of fact.