![[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Appeal No. UA-2022-001357-V
Between:
MC
Appellant
- v -
DISCLOSURE & BARRING SERVICE
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jones
Member Mr John Hutchinson
Member Ms Elizabeth Bainbridge
Mode of hearing: In person, Field house, London
Decision made: 16 June 2025
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Badar of counsel instructed by Sarker Solicitors
Respondent: Mr Serr of counsel instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP
SUMMARY OF DECISION
No mistake of fact or law in two decisions of the DBS including the Appellant on the Adults’ barred list (“ABL”) based upon the same incident on 8 November 2021 when the Appellant (“MC”) was acting as a care support worker for service user W. The Tribunal upheld the DBS’s finding of relevant conduct that the Appellant caused emotional harm to service user W by preventing him from legitimately using the kitchen and threatening him with violence. Appeal against inclusion on the ABL dismissed.
Mistake of law in decision of the DBS dated 3 March 2023 to include the Appellant on the Children’s barred list (“CBL”). There was no evidence to support any rational reason for the DBS to believe that the Appellant had engaged in regulated activity with children in the past nor that he might do so in the future. Appeal allowed and DBS directed to remove the Appellant from the CBL.
SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUNDS (65) (Children’s barred list 65.1; Adults’ barred list 65.2)
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION
- 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