![[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
REASONS FOR DECISION
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The Appellant [or “MC”] appeals against two DBS decisions [“the Decisions”] to include him on the Adults’ Barred List [“the ABL”] and/or the Children’s Barred List [“the CBL”] pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 [“the Act”].
The Decisions were made by the DBS separately and independently. They were based on two DBS investigations into the same events:
The first decision was made on 13 July 2022 to include MC on both the ABL and the CBL [“Decision 1”].
The second decision was made on 03 March 2023 to include MC on the ABL only [“Decision 2”].
- 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