DL v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 247 (AAC)
JC v The Disclosure and Barring Service
2 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 192 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A carer was accused of taking money from a vulnerable person she was caring for. The DBS banned her from working with vulnerable adults. The court reviewed the case and decided the ban was justified because there wasn't enough evidence to prove the carer's claims that she didn't take the money. The court found the evidence against the carer more believable.
Key Facts
- •JC, a carer, was accused of taking £1,500 from a vulnerable adult in her care.
- •The DBS included JC on the Adults' Barred List based on this allegation.
- •JC denied taking the money and argued the DBS's investigation was inadequate.
- •The police investigation concluded no coercion occurred but that JC abused her position of trust.
- •JC's employer dismissed her for gross misconduct related to the incident.
- •JC did not attend the disciplinary hearing due to illness and did not appeal the dismissal.
Legal Principles
Duty of enquiry for public law decision-makers to act rationally and take reasonable steps.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Metropolitan Borough of Tameside [1976] UKHL 6; [1977] AC 1014 (at 1065B)
Appropriateness of a barring decision is not reviewable by the Upper Tribunal.
R v (RCN and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin) and PF v DBS [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC); [2021] AACR 3
Upper Tribunal should afford weight to DBS's judgment on appropriateness.
SA v SB & RCN [2012] EWCA Civ 977; [2013] AACR 24
Upper Tribunal should consider the whole basis of the DBS decision, not just the letter.
VT –v- ISA [2011] UKUT 427 (AAC)
Limited grounds for Upper Tribunal to direct removal from Barred List.
DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 1575
Upper Tribunal should be slow to overturn DBS factual findings without new evidence.
Disclosure and Barring Service v JHB [2023] EWCA Civ 982 and Disclosure and Barring Service v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95
Relevant conduct under SVGA Schedule 3 paragraphs 9 and 10 includes conduct endangering a vulnerable adult.
Schedule 3 to the SVGA
Appeals under section 4 of the SVGA are limited to mistakes of law or material errors of fact.
Section 4 of the SVGA
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found no material errors of law or fact in the DBS's decision. JC's evidence was deemed lacking in credibility, and the Tribunal found the evidence from the police, the vulnerable adult, and JC's employer supported the DBS's conclusion.