JHB v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 367 (AAC)
AM v The Disclosure and Barring Service
8 November 2024
[2024] UKUT 354 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A dad was accused of sexually abusing his wife and kids. His oldest daughter initially said it was true but later said she lied. The court looked at all the evidence and decided the dad's actions were bad enough to be banned from working with children, even though the daughter changed her story. The court said they couldn't just decide if the ban was fair, only if the decision was made wrongly.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service's (DBS) decision to include the Appellant (Mr. M) on the Children's Barred List.
- •Allegations of historic sexual abuse against Mr. M involving his ex-wife and children.
- •Two Crown Court trials resulted in hung juries.
- •Appellant's eldest daughter (TM) initially supported the allegations but later retracted her statement, claiming fabrication by her mother.
- •DBS considered TM's retraction but found the consistent evidence of other complainants more convincing.
- •The Upper Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including TM's oral testimony.
Legal Principles
Appeals against DBS barring decisions are governed by section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, allowing appeals only on grounds of mistake of fact or law. The decision of appropriateness is non-appealable.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4
A mistake of fact may be an incorrect, incomplete finding, or an omission, but the Upper Tribunal must identify a mistake by the DBS; it is not enough that the Tribunal would have reached a different finding.
PF v DBS [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC)
The Upper Tribunal's role is to assess whether the DBS decision is irrational; it is not to substitute its own judgment on appropriateness.
DBS v JHB [2023] EWCA Civ 982 and DBS v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found no mistake of fact or law in the DBS's decision. The Tribunal found the original statements of the Appellant's daughter (TM) and other witnesses more credible than their later retractions and the Appellant's denials.