[2025] UKUT 167 (AAC)

Mr Wills submitted that the Appellant, even on the DBS’s findings, had not engaged in “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act (as defined by paragraph 10). On the DBS’s findings, the conduct of a sexual nature related solely to a child – no complaint of inappropriate sexual conduct had been made in respect of any adults at all, let alone vulnerable adults, and so the concern was not transferable. Mr Wills argued that any decision to bar for the purposes of the adults barred list had to be based on evidence, not hypotheticals, and accordingly the DBS’s decision was disproportionate. As such, he submitted, it involved an error of law.

Ms Hartley, on the other hand, contended that the “relevant conduct” condition was satisfied, as by statute it included “conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a vulnerable adult, would endanger that adult or would be likely to endanger him” (see paragraph 10(1)(b)). Furthermore, the bar for irrationality is a high one, being “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it” (CCSU v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at p.410 per Lord Diplock). Assuming a decision was made in accordance with the statutory purpose and was rational, “it would require very unusual facts for it to amount to a disproportionate restriction on Convention rights” (Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 1430 at [16] per Lord Hoffmann).