AW v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 258 (AAC)
IE v Disclosure and Barring Service
14 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 310 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A support worker was accused of mistreating a vulnerable person. Even though some of the details were wrong, enough evidence showed he acted badly, so he can't work with vulnerable people anymore.
Key Facts
- •IE, a senior support worker at a residential home for people with learning disabilities, was barred by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) following allegations of misconduct.
- •Nine allegations of misconduct were made against IE, involving inappropriate treatment of a service user (SS) with a learning disability and bipolar disorder.
- •The DBS found, on the balance of probabilities, that six of the nine allegations were proven, constituting 'relevant conduct' under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
- •IE appealed the DBS decision to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing mistakes of fact and law.
- •The UT heard oral evidence from IE and reviewed all evidence, including that not available to the DBS initially.
- •The UT found IE's evidence unreliable and inconsistent with witness testimony.
- •The UT confirmed the DBS's decision to bar IE, finding no material mistakes of fact in the core allegations, although some minor factual errors were identified in other allegations.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal (UT) has jurisdiction to interfere with a DBS decision if there is a material mistake of fact or law.
PF v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC)
The UT may consider all evidence, including evidence not before the DBS, and make its own findings of fact.
PF v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC)
The decision on whether it is 'appropriate' to include an individual on the barred list is not a question of law or fact for the UT; however, the rationality and proportionality of that decision can be challenged.
Section 4(3) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006; DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 157
The DBS's assessment of risk is given significant weight by the UT, particularly in matters engaging its expertise.
PF v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC); DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 157
The standard of proof in DBS barring decisions is the balance of probabilities.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
Outcomes
The UT dismissed IE's appeal.
The UT found no material mistakes of fact in the DBS's decision regarding the most serious allegations, and the minor factual errors identified did not change the overall outcome.