[2025] UKUT 202 (AAC)

The central question for us was whether the DBS made a mistake of fact or law in their decision to place GU on the Vulnerable Adults and Children’s Barred Lists. We have had the benefit of hearing from GU and have listened carefully to all his evidence. Without in any way wishing to diminish the importance of the outcome of this case to the appellant this, in essence, is a straightforward matter of whether the DBS made any errors in the findings of fact that they relied upon in concluding he was guilty of emotional and physical abuse. The DBS say the facts are as set out in the Barring Decision Summary and above and the appellant says those facts are lies.

The appellant was given permission to appeal to this tribunal because he said he had numerous witnesses, including his wife and sister-in-law who would support his version of events as well as the possibility that his own oral evidence would prove compelling. That has not proved to be the case as his only witness was a friend who could give only a good character testimonial and could not assist with any direct evidence about the subject of the allegations.

The fact that his now ex-wife appeared to be unaware of these proceedings or her expected role in them undermined the appellant’s credibility. The fact that his sister-in-law did not attend to give evidence in support and that he produced no other evidence, such as the alleged text messages which he said would support his arguments that the allegations were made up by E, further undermined his evidence.

Having had the benefit of hearing and questioning the appellant we did not find his evidence to be convincing; it was in places inconsistent and lacking in clarity. The other evidence before us was the evidence which had been before the DBS and which provided a credible picture of the appellant having emotionally and physically abused his wife and stepchildren. There was nothing in his evidence to the Tribunal which convinced us that those findings were mistaken or that there was something missing.

Permission had not been given on the issue of proportionality but it has been raised by appellant in his submission. We accept that he is of previous good character and there are testimonials to his charitable nature and good work and he is undoubtedly being denied opportunities to work in his chosen field. But on the basis of evidence of emotional and physical abuse of family members, it cannot be said to be a disproportionate decision to bar him from working with children or vulnerable adults because of the risks identified.

We find no error of law in the DBS’ decision and this appeal is dismissed.