![[2025] UKUT 167 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Appellant’s written representations to the DBS
The Appellant’s written representations to the DBS
In his written representations to the DBS, the Appellant denied having any sexual interest in Molly or indeed in any child or vulnerable person. He also denied having said in his police interview that he had kissed Molly in the same way as he would kiss his partner. He admitted that he seemed “to have a light brain regarding alcohol”, referring to a work colleague’s leaving party in 2019 when “I was made to understand though jokes the following day at work that I was drunk” on that occasion. The Appellant further explained as follows in his representations:
That I have acted in a manner that is now interpreted as sexual towards Molly as a result of being drunk, which I know cannot happen in my clear eyes, makes me feel really bad with myself. I remember that the next day after the party, I was shown videos that were taken of me where in some of them; it appeared like I have passed out. In one of the videos, I realised that Molly has coloured my face with paint, which I did not even know when that happened. In another video, it looked like Molly was trying to make me an object of laughter. She was trying to stuff something into my mouth and nose, and I was reacting to that and was thinking that it was [Rover] (Ellie’s dog) that was messing up with me. I was saying “[Rover] leave me alone.” When I saw those videos, I was so embarrassed and really ashamed of myself. Therefore, relating this event with my past experience at a colleagues’ send-off party, has made me to realise that in a situation of being drunk, I can do some senseless things. This is the reason that I accepted that I may have kissed Molly. And since this came to my knowledge, it has been haunting me, and I have not been happy with myself. Since then, I have made up my mind to totally give up any drink that contains alcohol.
- 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