PM v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 160 (AAC)
GR v Disclosure and Barring Service
5 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 239 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A childcare worker was barred from working with children because she broke rules by being too friendly with kids and got one of them to smoke cannabis. A court heard the case and decided the ban was fair because the worker hadn't learned her lesson and was still a risk to children.
Key Facts
- •GR, a residential childcare worker with 21 years of experience, received a final written warning for blurring professional boundaries with a child (J) in November 2020.
- •A subsequent allegation arose in April 2021 involving another vulnerable child (N), claiming GR supplied cannabis and took him to her home.
- •The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) included GR on the Children's and Adults' Barred Lists based on these incidents.
- •GR appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing mistakes of fact and law, and disproportionate barring.
- •The UT heard oral evidence from GR and reviewed documentary evidence, including untested hearsay from DBS witnesses.
- •The UT found GR's evidence unreliable and upheld the DBS's findings of fact regarding both incidents.
- •The UT dismissed GR's appeal, concluding the DBS's decision was not irrational or disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Appeals to the UT against DBS barring decisions can only succeed if the DBS made a mistake of law or a material mistake of fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(2)
The decision of whether barring is 'appropriate' is not a question of law or fact for the UT.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(3)
The UT can consider all evidence, including evidence not before the DBS, to determine if a material mistake of fact occurred. The UT will not defer to the DBS on factual matters but will give appropriate weight to the DBS’s factual findings in matters that engage its expertise.
PF v DBS UKUT [2020] 256 AAC
Proportionality of barring decisions is assessed using the four questions outlined in Huang and Quila.
R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of Stage for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 621; Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The UT found no material mistakes of fact or law in the DBS's decision. The UT determined that GR's actions constituted relevant conduct, and the barring decision was proportionate to protect vulnerable children and adults.