[2025] UKUT 202 (AAC)

The appellant, at the time of the allegations which formed the basis of the DBS’ decision was married to MS and they lived together as a family with their baby and three children who were 15, 13 and 7 years old from MS’s previous relationship. They had been married since 2018. The appellant ran his own recruitment business which mainly recruited carers. He said that he had worked with vulnerable children and adults since 2016 in the UK and had an exemplary record. The appellant and his wife have since divorced.

The allegations against the appellant had been made initially by his 15-year-old stepson who had attended the local police station on 4 February 2021 and disclosed a series of domestic related assaults, threats to kill and threats to damage property in the family home. The details were that on numerous occasions since September 2020 the appellant had slapped both him and his two younger brothers across their faces. Also, that his mother, MS had been subjected to various forms of violent abuse for over 2 years but it had become worse more recently – the abuse was described as slapping, punching and using a belt to cause injury. He told police that in December 2020 the appellant had used a belt to hit his mother, punched her in the face injuring her nose and threatened to burn the house down with them all inside. It was also alleged that the appellant walked round the house holding a knife.

The police had visited the home and arrested the appellant the same day on 4 February 2021, for criminal damage, threats to kill, assault, ABH and several counts of common assault against his partner and her three children. They had found the children and MS sitting packed and apparently ready to leave the house. The family were moved to temporary accommodation out of the area.

Initially MS offered to provide support to the police proceedings against the appellant but she then withdrew support. There were then further offers to support but these were met with reluctance because of apparent concern about repercussions for herself and her reliance on the appellant for everything because she does not speak English. MS is a Portuguese national and does not speak fluent English – she required an interpreter for her interviews with the police and an interpreter had been arranged for her attendance today at the hearing had she attended.

Whilst she declined to make a statement she did confirm to the police, when not being recorded, that her husband, the appellant, was extremely manipulative although he appeared to everyone else to be a lovely Christian man. She described him as being verbally abusive to her, making her feel worthless and calling her a prostitute for having children with another man and telling her to get rid of the children. She also disclosed that she was told that if she reported the appellant, the children would be taken away. She confirmed to the police an incident on the previous Boxing Day where the appellant had threatened her at knife point and said that she slept with a stick because she was afraid of him. She expressed gratitude to the police for saving the family as she had been fearful for all their lives which she said was why their bags had been packed.

The police were also given a 6-second video clip from mobile ‘phone footage which apparently showed the appellant following MS round the home with something in his hand and then a distressed voice calling out “No” and then “don’t hit me” a together with a sound that the police associate with a trouser belt cracking and a banging sound.

There was further confirmation of allegations of abuse in the interview given to the local authority by the oldest step-child.

On 5 February 2021 the appellant was interviewed by the police. He denied hitting his wife or any of the children. He denied intimidating the children and said that he did impose punishments such as grounding or confiscating their PlayStation. He denied the alleged assault of MS on Boxing Day and denied the threats to kill the family or burn the house down. The police decided, after investigation, to take no further action.

On 4 May 2021, after the appellant had applied for enhanced disclosure, the DBS sent him an early warning letter saying that they had received information from the police about their investigation into him and were considering whether to include him on one or both barred lists which would prevent him engaging in regulated activity.

On 9 August 2022 [17] the DBS sent a minded to bar letter which set out their findings which led them to conclude that

“Based on the enclosed information, it appears, on the balance of probabilities, that: on several occasions between 2020 and 2021, you physically and emotionally abused you wife and stepchildren.”

It recorded that his behaviour had resulted in significant emotional harm to his family such that they were willing to leave home to escape it and were frightened of repercussions after reporting it. It was noted that the Police had taken no further action but that decision had been taken on the criminal standard of proof and because MS had withdrawn her support but on the balance of probabilities DBS were satisfied that:

“you slapped your stepchildren hard across the face on numerous occasions, sometimes for limited reasons such as making too much noise whilst playing with Lego, used a belt to hit your wife and punched her in the face, made threats to “end” your stepson and burn down the house with the family inside and threatened to take the youngest child away so that the other children would never see him again.”

The appellant was sent the evidence gathered by the police and the local authority that the DBS had relied upon. The appellant was given the opportunity to make representations but did not make any in the time period allowed and was refused an extension as the DBS were satisfied that he had signed for the minded to bar letter.

A final decision was issued on 11 October 2022 which confirmed that the DBS had decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to include the appellant on both the Children’s and the Adult’s Barred Lists [82].

The appellant’s application to appeal the DBS’s decision did not contain detailed grounds rather it stated that the evidence which they had relied upon was lies and asserted that he had never previously been in trouble. In advance of the hearing, he provided a witness statement from HJ, a character reference from a former employer and a letter from the letting agency which he said showed he had not removed his wife’s name from the tenancy as his stepson had alleged. [191-199]