PQ v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 161 (AAC)
CW v Disclosure and Barring Service
16 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 19 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A teacher was put on a list that prevents them from working with children. They tried to appeal, arguing the reasons were wrong. The court decided the reasons given were good enough, and the teacher stayed on the list. A late attempt to present new evidence was also rejected because it wasn't given on time.
Key Facts
- •CW, a supply teacher, was included in the children's barred list by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) on 25 May 2022.
- •The decision was based on three incidents involving alleged physical and emotional harm to children.
- •CW appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal.
- •The Upper Tribunal considered evidence from various sources, including witness statements, emails, and meeting minutes.
- •CW's application to submit a witness statement late was rejected due to procedural non-compliance.
- •The Upper Tribunal ultimately dismissed CW's appeal.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal can only overturn a DBS decision if the DBS made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(2)
The decision of whether it is appropriate to include an individual in a barred list is not a question of law or fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(3)
A finding of fact is 'wrong' if the Upper Tribunal hears evidence not before the DBS showing the DBS finding was wrong.
DBS v JHB [2023] EWCA Civ 982 (referenced)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found no mistakes in the DBS's factual findings or points of law. While some evidence contradicted the DBS's findings, it was not sufficient to overturn them. The Tribunal considered that the DBS acted reasonably within the bounds of permissible disagreement.
CW's application to admit a late witness statement was refused.
The application was made late, without explanation despite prior case management directions. Admitting the statement would have required an adjournment, impacting other cases.