Key Facts
- •JLA, a senior care assistant with 17 years' experience, appealed a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) decision to include her name on the Adults' Barred List.
- •The DBS decision was based on two findings of relevant conduct: failure to report a service user's cut catheter tube and a PPE policy breach.
- •JLA argued mistakes of fact and law in the DBS decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal, finding material mistakes of fact in the first finding and a mistake of law in the second.
Legal Principles
Appeals to the UT against DBS decisions can be made on grounds of mistake of law or fact; the decision on appropriateness of barring is not a question of law or fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Section 4
The UT has jurisdiction to identify and make findings on evidence regarding mistakes of fact, considering all evidence, not just that before the DBS.
PF v DBS UKUT [2020] 256 AAC, DBS v RI [2024] EWCA Civ 95
Proportionality of barring decisions must be assessed using the Aguilar Quila/Bank Mellat test, considering the importance of the objective, rational connection, less intrusive measures, and a fair balance between individual rights and community interests.
R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of Stage for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 621, Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Material mistakes of fact were found in the first finding of relevant conduct (catheter incident), and a mistake of law in the second (PPE breach).
Remittal to the DBS for a new decision.
The UT made findings of fact to guide the DBS's new decision; JLA remains on the barred list pending the new decision.