[2025] UKUT 311 (AAC)

Schedule 3, para 3 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) materially provides:

“(1)

This paragraph applies to a person if–

(a)

it appears to DBS that the person —

(i)

has (at any time) engaged in relevant conduct, and

(ii)

is or has been, or might in future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and

(b)

DBS proposes to include him in the children's barred list.

(2)

DBS must give the person the opportunity to make representations as to why he should not be included in the children's barred list.

(3)

DBS¹ must include the person in the children's barred list if–

(a)

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,[

(aa)  it has reason to believe that the person is or has been, or might in future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and

(b)

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.”

Para 4 provides:

“(1)

For the purposes of paragraph 3 relevant conduct is–

(a)

conduct which endangers a child or is likely to endanger a child;

(b)

conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that child or would be likely to endanger him;

… .

(2)

A person's conduct endangers a child if he–

(a)

harms a child,

(b)

causes a child to be harmed,

(c)

puts a child at risk of harm,

(d)

attempts to harm a child, or

(e)

incites another to harm a child.

There are equivalent provisions for vulnerable adults which it is not necessary to set out.

Section 4(1) of the 2006 Act confers a right of appeal. The section makes the following relevant further provision:

“(2)

An appeal under subsection (1) may be made only on the grounds that DBS has made a mistake–

In hearing oral evidence and receiving written evidence and assessing it against the written material on which DBS based its decision we are following the principles set out in Disclosure and Barring Service v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95. There was no dispute as to the relevant principles before us and we do not consider it necessary to quote from that case.