[2025] UKUT 202 (AAC)

At the hearing the appellant relied on a written submission which he read out to the Tribunal panel in addition to giving oral evidence and being questioned.

We have explained at paragraph 5 above the witness evidence we heard at the hearing. Neither MS nor MB attended to give evidence. HJ, a friend of the appellant, gave brief evidence by way of a video link which was all directed at the appellant’s good character. HJ had met the appellant’s then wife only once and had no first-hand knowledge of the allegations against the appellant. He was aware of them as he had accompanied the appellant to answer bail.

The appellant, in his oral evidence and during cross examination, categorically denied all the allegations of physical and emotional abuse and asserted that the evidence relied upon by the DBS was inconsistent, speculative or false. He pointed out that he had not been given the opportunity to view the six second video footage and that the suggestion that a belt could be heard being cracked was purely speculative and so unreliable.

The appellant highlighted the inconsistent nature of his then wife’s statements to the police, the lack of direct questioning of the children by social services and the vague nature of the allegations made. He believed that the stepchildren had been influenced by his sister-in-law to lie about him to the police in an attempt to get him excluded from the family. His statement confirmed that his wife and other family members were willing to provide testimony which directly contradicted the evidence against him. He suggested that racial and possibly religious bias had played a part in how his case had been handled. He said that the emotional and mental toll of the case had been significant and the decision was disproportionate and unfair.

The appellant explained that his oldest stepson “E” who made the allegations had been put up to it by his sister-in-law and he had told the police that he thought that was because he had tried to assert some parental authority to stop E falling into bad habits by grounding him and removing video games. He recognised that E had a father, his biological father, who was in France and that there was resentment towards the appellant when he imposed any rules or discipline. He thought that was his motivation for making up lies about the appellant and the alleged abuse. The appellant suggested that the motivation for his sister- in-law encouraging E to report him to the police was to do with complications in the relationship between him, her and her sister as there was some element of jealousy. He could not explain why his sister-in-law had originally apparently been willing to give evidence on his behalf at the hearing but now was not able to attend.

The appellant said that he and his wife had argued on 4^th February, as one of the children had told him his wife had been seeing someone else while they had been staying in France without the appellant. He had decided to leave the family home and then said that he already had a flight to Africa booked for a charity work related visit. He said that he had gone out for a walk to calm down after the argument and that he was intending to leave for his flight after that but when he came back, the police had arrived and he had already missed the time for his flight. He denied that his wife and stepchildren appeared to have bags packed and ready to go when the police arrived, saying it there was only one bag and it was his luggage ready for his flight to Africa.

The appellant could not explain why his wife had not attended the hearing to give evidence and seemed, from her email on the morning of the hearing, to be unaware that she was expected to give evidence. He said she had told him she knew E had lied and had said this in text messages to him multiple times. He had not provided these text messages.

The appellant explained the significant impact upon him of the barring decision as it meant he could not pursue his chosen career. He was however still undertaking charitable work in Africa on a fairly regular basis as he had done prior to the barring. He felt stigmatised and aggrieved that the DBS has accepted what he believed to be false evidence against him.