[2025] UKUT 321 (AAC)

The DBS is a body corporate (section 87 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")). It is not a servant or agent of the Crown (POFA, Schedule 8, paragraph 15(1)(a)). Barring decisions are part of the core functions of the DBS, and the Secretary of State is precluded from giving directions to the DBS in respect of any such core function (POFA, Schedule 8, paragraphs 8 and 14).

The arrangements governing the DBS's functions of protecting children (and vulnerable adults) are contained in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act"). Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act provides, at paragraph 3:

"Relevant conduct" is defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 as including conduct of a sexual nature involving a child, "if it appears to DBS that the conduct is inappropriate." It also includes conduct which puts a child at risk of harm.

Teaching children is a regulated activity under section 5 and Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the 2006 Act. A person included in the children's barred list is prohibited from engaging in regulated activity relating to children (section 3 of the 2006 Act).

The requirement that, before making a barring decision, the DBS must afford the individual concerned the opportunity to make representations as to why they should not be included in the children's barred list, is addressed in more detail in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3. This provides, relevantly, in sub-paragraph (3) that:

The ambit of the role and functions of the DBS was explained by the Divisional Court in R(SXM) v DBS [2020] EWHC 624 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 3259 in these terms at [38]:

Section 4 of the 2006 Act provides for a right of appeal against a barring decision to the UT, with the permission of the UT, on the grounds that the DBS has made a mistake on any point of law or in any finding of fact which it has made and on which the barring decision was based. If the UT finds that the DBS made such a mistake, it must either direct the DBS to remove the appellant from the barred list or remit the matter to the DBS for a fresh decision. If it takes the latter course, the UT may set out any findings of fact which it has made on which the DBS must base its new decision.

In determining such an appeal, the UT is not restricted to consideration of the information which was before the DBS decision maker. It has the power to hear oral evidence, and to make its own findings of fact and draw its own inferences from all the evidence before it. It will not defer to the DBS in factual matters but will afford appropriate weight to fact-findings by the DBS in matters that engage its expertise, such as the assessment of risk to the public: see PF v DBS [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC) at [51], approved by this Court in Kihembo v DBS [2023] EWCA Civ 1547 at [26].

In the present case, the UT accurately summarised the case law on the nature and extent of its "mistake of fact" jurisdiction under section 4(2)(b) of the 2006 Act at [39] to [47] of its determination. It referred, among other matters, to the decision in DBS v JHB [2023] EWCA Civ 982 in which it was confirmed by the Court of Appeal that a finding of fact may be "wrong" even if there was some evidence to support it or it was not irrational, if it is a finding about which the UT has heard evidence which was not before the DBS and the new evidence shows that the finding made by the DBS was wrong. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the UT had erred by substituting its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the DBS decision-maker in circumstances where (i) the evidence was identical, and (ii) the UT had not held that the DBS had made findings which were not open to a reasonable decision-maker (i.e. irrational).

The UT also referred to the more recent case of DBS v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95, in which a different constitution of the Court of Appeal found it difficult to discern the ratio of JHB save possibly that "it may be authority for the proposition that if the UT has exactly the same material before it as was before the DBS, then the tribunal should not overturn the findings of the DBS unless they were irrational or there was simply no evidence to justify the decision": see the judgment of Bean LJ, with which Males LJ and Lewis LJ agreed, at [33]. Males LJ, in his concurring judgment, with which Lewis LJ also agreed, indicated that the restrictive approach adopted in JHB should be confined to those cases where the appellant does not give oral evidence before the appellate tribunal, or gives no evidence relevant to the question whether they committed the relevant act relied upon. The UT quoted from his judgment where he said (at [49]):

The UT directed itself in accordance with that approach. It first satisfied itself that whilst the DBS decision could have been better explained, and different findings could have been made, the findings made by the DBS were open to the decision maker on the evidence before them. It then considered further evidence, including the TRA decision, to ascertain whether any of those findings were mistaken ([88] and [89]).

For completeness, Paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act provides for the right of a person who is included in a barred list to apply to the DBS for a review of their inclusion (though the permission of the DBS is required to make such an application). However, sub-paragraph (3) provides that such an application can only be made after the end of the minimum barred period (which is prescribed by regulations, currently SI 2008/474) which in XYZ's case is 10 years.”