![[2025] UKUT 167 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 2
Ground 2
Introduction
The second ground of appeal is that the DBS made an error of law in respect of proportionality in relation to its decision to bar the Appellant from working with vulnerable adults as well as with children.
The DBS’s final decision letter summarised its reasoning for including the Appellant on the Adults’ Barred List in the passage cited at paragraph 19 above. The Barred Decision Summary document further explained as follows:
We acknowledge that [the Appellant] has worked with vulnerable adults with no evidence of concerns for over 6 years, however this does not reduce our concerns that he would not repeat such behaviour in such a setting. We note [the Appellant’s] inability to control his urges and his transgression of boundaries also raises concerns that, in working with vulnerable adults, he may repeat similar behaviour by acting upon urges that he knows are unacceptable/ wrong. This behaviour would likely cause significant emotional harm to vulnerable adults.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service dated 8 April 2024 was not based on any material mistake in any finding of fact and invo
- Introduction
- The individuals involved
- A summary of the factual background
- The Upper Tribunal oral hearing
- The legal framework for barring decisions
- The Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to bar the Appellant
- The Appellant’s grounds of appeal
- The Appellant’s oral evidence
- Ground 1
- Ellie’s evidence
- Mollie’s evidence
- The Appellant’s evidence
- The police interview
- The Appellant’s written representations to the DBS
- The Appellant’s oral evidence to the Upper Tribunal
- Mistake of fact: our analysis
- Ground 2
- The parties’ submissions
- Proportionality: our analysis
- Conclusions