![[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 1
The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 1
05.01.22 - DBS “early warning” letter [24].
03.02.22 - MC’s email in response (“the Initial Reps”) [80].
- DBS “minded to bar” letter [28], with attachments [34].
05.07.22 - Written representations from a solicitor on behalf of MC (“the Reps”) [83].
Decision 1
- DBS letter communicating Decision 1 (i.e. to include MC in both the CBL and the ABL). to MC (“the Final Letter”) [88] (to be considered alongside the Barring Decision Summary, which sets out more fully the rationale of the DBS decision-maker [95]). In summary it stated:
“We are satisfied that you meet the criteria for regulated activity. This is because you worked as a Support Worker for E Services and previously applied for employment as a Healthcare Assistant and Support Worker with checks on both lists.
We have considered all the information we hold and are satisfied of the following:
On 08/11/2021, whilst employed as a Support Worker for E Services, you caused emotional harm to service user W[] by preventing him from legitimately using the kitchen and threatening him with violence.
Having considered this, DBS is satisfied you engaged in relevant conduct in relation to
children and vulnerable adults. This is because you have engaged in conduct which
endangered a vulnerable adult or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult.
It is also considered that you have engaged in relevant conduct in relation to children,
specifically conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that
child or would be likely to endanger him or her.
We are satisfied a barring decision is appropriate. This is because W[] was particularly
vulnerable due to his diagnosis of Schizophrenia, ASD and diabetes and required
supported living accommodation, however you emotionally abused him by instigating
unnecessary and unprovoked intimidating and threatening behaviour which caused
emotional harm to W[] and prompted him to call the police. Police dealt with the matter by way of Community resolution including an apology letter to W[].
…”
- 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