[2025] UKUT 321 (AAC)

We begin by addressing the grounds of appeal on which the Appellant was granted permission to appeal before addressing the submissions as grounds of appeal pursued at the hearing.

We do not find there to be any mistake of fact in the DBS’s finding of relevant conduct for the reasons set out above.

We do not accept there was any material error of law in the DBS’s barring decision based upon the complaints of procedural unfairness regarding the employer’s investigatory and disciplinary processes. Any flaws in employment and dismissal process would be a matter for the employment tribunal in any challenge. The Appellant had an opportunity to give an account to the employer regarding the incident in response to the complaint and to appeal panel before the final disciplinary decision to dismiss her. The fact that RR was not interviewed by the employer and did not wish to pursue a criminal complaint is not material when she did give an account to the police which we have had an opportunity to consider together with all the evidence.

The same applies to the DBS’s investigation and process. It reasonably considered all the evidence provided to it and was not under a further duty in the circumstances of this to conduct further investigations into the evidence. RR was interviewed by the police even if not by the employer and a record was made of her account but a wish not to pursue the matter. The DBS approached all the evidence reasonably in its Barring Decision Process document. In any event, any flaws in the process by employer or DBS would not be material. The Appellant had the opportunity to present all relevant evidence on her behalf to the Tribunal during the appeal proceedings. We have had the opportunity to assess all the evidence on this appeal, including the Appellant’s oral evidence, and have taken into account the absence of oral evidence or cross examination of RR, BB and MJL. Nonetheless, we assess their contemporaneous accounts are reliable.

We do not accept that this ground gives rise to any mistake of law. The DBS did not fail to take account of relevant evidence considered MOO’s representations regarding:

The DBS was reasonably entitled to find the allegation proven on the balance of probabilities notwithstanding these representations given the evidence, facts and matters set out above. It made no error of law