PQ v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 161 (AAC)
JI v Disclosure and Barring Service
3 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 270 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A teacher was put on a list that prevents her from working with children after she put a child in a highchair outside to stop them being disruptive. A court decided the punishment was fair because protecting children is important.
Key Facts
- •JI, a kindergarten practitioner, was included in the children's barred list by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) following an incident on October 12, 2020.
- •The incident involved JI placing a child (PK) in a highchair outside as a means of managing disruptive behavior.
- •JI appealed the DBS decision to the Upper Tribunal.
- •The appeal focused on alleged mistakes in DBS's findings of fact and the proportionality of the barring decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal considered evidence from various sources, including incident reports, witness statements, and JI's own account.
- •JI argued that her actions were motivated by a desire to ensure PK's safety and were influenced by her own mental health struggles.
- •The Upper Tribunal found no material mistakes in DBS's factual findings and concluded that the barring decision was not disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a DBS decision under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is limited to mistakes of law or fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Section 4(2)
The decision on 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)
In assessing proportionality, a court must weigh competing considerations, including the measure's necessity, the balance between individual rights and community interests, and the expertise and judgment of the responsible body.
B v ISA (RNC intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 977
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed JI's appeal.
The Tribunal found no material mistakes in the DBS's factual findings and concluded that the barring decision was not disproportionate, considering the safeguarding risks and the public interest.