[2025] UKUT 202 (AAC)

This is the Appellant’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s (DBS from now on) final decision, dated 3 October 2022 [8- 12] to include him on both the Adults’ and Children’s Barred List under Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’). The ground given was that the DBS were satisfied that “On several occasions between 2020 and 2021, you physically and emotionally abused your wife and stepchildren.”

The appellant was granted permission to appeal on 16 April 2024 [136-142] on the grounds that it was arguable that the DBS had made a mistake of fact as there was a real prospect that the appellant’s own oral evidence and the evidence of the several witnesses he said would support his account would be believed. The appeal is opposed by the Respondent.

There is no dispute that GU met the criteria for regulated activity under the relevant provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (‘the SVGA’) by reason of his application for roles as a support worker with adults and children.

The appellant lodged an appeal with the Upper Tribunal on 24 June 2023 [2-9].

We held an in-person hearing at Field House, London which the Appellant attended – he was not represented. The matter was listed for 2 days of hearing as initially the appellant had indicated that he would be calling 15 witnesses to give evidence in support of his appeal. As that was to include 4 members of his extended family who needed interpreters a generous time estimate was given. The appellant indicated that his, now ex-wife, was willing to attend to give evidence for him and arrangements were made for her to attend remotely so there could be no risk of any coercion. The appellant then reduced his witnesses to 7 and, in correspondence received shortly before the hearing, indicated that he would only actually be calling 3 people to give evidence, his ex-wife “MS”, a neighbour “MB” and a friend “HJ”.

In the event we heard oral evidence only from the Appellant in person and HJ who joined by video. When the Tribunal staff had sent MS joining details, she had responded by email on the morning of the hearing asking what the hearing was about and what she was expected to be giving evidence about. She was informed that attendance was voluntary and was given the opportunity to join by video but chose not to do so. MB had not been in recent contact with the appellant and on the morning of the hearing, had not answered his telephone when the appellant attempted to find out if he was attending.

We had an electronic bundle of documents and references in [ ] are to the page number in the bundle. We had a skeleton argument and a bundle of authorities from the Respondent. The Appellant had a hard copy of both. The appellant had a typed statement which he read out to the Tribunal.

This was a private hearing. We refer to the Appellant as “GU” or “the Appellant” throughout in order to preserve his privacy and anonymity. For that same reason, we make the rule 14 Order included at the head of this decision and will refer to other individuals by initials only.