Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 269 (AAC)

Fecha: 20-Jun-2025

Heading

[2025] UKUT 269 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2023-001080-V

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

On appeal from a decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service

Between:

Appellant

- v -

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Before: Judge Sarah Johnston sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal, Ms Michele Tynan and Roger Graham

Decision date: 20 June 2025

Hearing dates: 3 July 2024 and 17 April 2025

Mode of hearing: Oral hearing and deliberation on the papers on further evidence

Representation:

Appellant: Represented herself

Respondent: Mr Tabori, instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP

On appeal from:

the decision of the DBS

In a letter dated: 03 May 2023

DBS reference: 00986461289

ANONYMITY ORDER

1. On 18 October 2024, the Upper Tribunal made an order protecting the following institutions and persons. The Upper Tribunal now remakes the order, but this time using descriptions rather than names, given that this decision will be published.

2. Having considered the DBS’s application, and for the reasons given by the DBS in the 7 September 2023 letter, the Upper Tribunal prohibits the disclosure or publication (i) of the names of the following; and (ii) of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the following–

(1) The school involved in the case

(2) Child A- the child who it was alleged was slapped.

(3) Child B – the child witness who first made the allegation.

(4) The Head Teacher

(5) The class teacher

(6) Ad – child witness

(7) So child witness

(8) A – child witness

(9) Sa – child witness

(10) JH – class cover

(11) GL – character witness for the appellant

(12) CPA – character witness for the appellant

3. Any breach of the order at paragraph 2 above is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and punished accordingly (section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups: 65.1: Children’s barred list, 65.9: Appeal allowed; mistake of fact in DBS decision, 65.19: Directed removal from list.

The decision of the Tribunal was that there was a mistake of fact in the DBS decision in finding that an allegation against the appellant was proved. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal decided the appellant should be removed from the Children’s Barred List.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION