JC v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 192 (AAC)
DL v The Disclosure and Barring Service
12 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 247 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A care worker was wrongly put on a list that bans people from working with vulnerable adults because the original investigation was poor and unreliable. A higher court reviewed everything and found the care worker was innocent, so they were removed from the ban list.
Key Facts
- •DL, a care home worker, was included in the adults' barred list by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) for allegedly borrowing money from a service user (JG), failing to repay £20, and requesting a further loan.
- •The DBS's decision was based on an internal investigation at DL's workplace, which contained inconsistencies and lacked detail.
- •DL appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing that the DBS made mistakes in its findings of fact.
- •The UT considered new evidence (care records of JG and Citizens Advice representations) not available to the DBS.
- •The UT found JG's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, confusion, and a history of unsubstantiated allegations.
- •The UT found DL to be a credible witness and accepted her denials of wrongdoing.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine mistakes of fact by the DBS is limited to material mistakes that contributed to the decision. The UT can consider evidence not before the DBS.
PF v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC) and DBS v JHB [2023] EWCA Civ 982
An appeal to the UT under section 4(2)(b) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 can only be made on the grounds of a mistake of fact by the DBS. The UT's power to make its own factual findings and whether a hearing is required is explored.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Schedule 3, paragraphs 9 and 10; section 4; DBS v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95
The UT must direct removal from the barred list only if it is satisfied that is the only lawful decision the DBS could make if the case were remitted.
AB v Disclosure and Barring Service [2021] EWCA Civ 1575
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The UT found that the DBS made mistakes in its findings of fact, concluding there was no clear evidence that DL had borrowed money, failed to repay it, or requested a further loan. The UT considered all available evidence, including material not available to the DBS initially.
The DBS was directed to remove DL from the adults' barred list.
The UT determined that, given its findings of fact, removing DL from the list was the only lawful decision the DBS could make.