![[2025] UKUT 321 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Barring Decision Process – unreasonableness and disproportionality
Barring Decision Process – unreasonableness and disproportionality
Mr Masemola submitted that the barring decision process was unreasonable and disproportionate such that there was a mistake of law. He submitted that the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness is satisfied by careful examination of the DBS documents and following headings therein: Establishment of Relevant Conduct and the Structured Judgement Process - Cognitive factors – Harm, Supportive thinking; attitude and beliefs.
On both counts he submitted the DBS made an erroneous assessment which led it to consider MOO harmful and a risk to other service users. This was made on an irrational, unfounded and perverse basis.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the DBS dated 13 February 2024 is dismissed. There was no mistake of fact nor law in the decision to include h
- Introduction
- Factual background
- Undisputed Chronology
- The incident on 5 February 2023
- Investigatory meeting
- Disciplinary Meeting 17 February 2023
- The Internal Appeal – 27 March 2023
- The DBS Decision
- The Appeal to the UT and grounds on which permission was granted
- Legal framework
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- Relevant general tests/principles
- Mistakes of fact and the UT’s fact finding jurisdiction
- Assessment of risk
- The grounds of appeal and the Appellant’s submissions
- Barring Decision Process – unreasonableness and disproportionality
- Mistake of law – procedural fairness
- Mistake of fact
- Facts Found
- Appellant’s evidence
- LR’s evidence
- Voice note of team leader Z
- Findings of fact
- Discussion and Analysis
- Other errors of law
- Irrationality
- Proportionality
- Mitigating
- Aggravating
- Conclusions