Disclosure and Barring Service v JHB
[2023] EWCA Civ 982
Disclosure and Barring Service v RI
9 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 95
Court of Appeal
A support worker was wrongly accused of theft by her employer and the DBS. An independent tribunal heard her testimony and believed her, overturning the DBS's decision. The Court of Appeal agreed that the tribunal was right to consider her evidence and overturn the decision, emphasizing fairness and the importance of allowing people to present their side of the story.
Key Facts
- •RI, a support worker, was accused of stealing £2,800 from a vulnerable service user, RV.
- •The DBS added RI to the Adults' Barred List based on an internal investigation and RV's statements, despite the police closing the case due to insufficient evidence.
- •RI appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which overturned the DBS decision, finding that RI did not steal the money.
- •The DBS appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the UT erred in its approach to the mistake of fact jurisdiction.
- •The Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of the mistake of fact jurisdiction under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and relevant case law.
Legal Principles
The UT's jurisdiction on appeal from the DBS is to identify mistakes of law or fact, but not to decide on appropriateness of inclusion on the barred list.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, s. 4
The UT must distinguish between findings of fact and value judgments or evaluations of evidence weight when remitting a case to the DBS.
AB v DBS [2021] EWCA Civ 1575
The UT has jurisdiction to investigate any arguable wrong finding of fact if material to the decision.
R (Royal College of Nursing) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin)
On appeal from an administrative decision-maker, the UT can hear relevant evidence not before the DBS and isn't bound by Ladd v Marshall principles.
PF v DBS [2020] UK UT 256 (AAC), JHB v DBS [2023] EWCA Civ 982
A disagreement on evidence evaluation isn't a 'mistake of fact' unless the UT hears new evidence showing the DBS's finding was wrong, or the conclusion is irrational.
JHB v DBS [2023] EWCA Civ 982
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the DBS's appeal.
The UT permissibly exercised its mistake of fact jurisdiction by considering RI's oral evidence, which was new evidence not before the DBS, and finding her credible. The Court rejected the DBS's argument that the UT impermissibly reevaluated the same evidence.