IE v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2023] UKUT 310 (AAC)
JO v Disclosure and Barring Service
12 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 308 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone was barred from working with vulnerable adults. An appeal court said some of the reasons for the bar were wrong, so they sent it back to be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •JO appealed the Disclosure and Barring Service's (DBS) decision to include her name on the Adults' Barred List (ABL).
- •The DBS based its decision on two allegations of relevant conduct: instructing carers to withhold food and water from end-of-life residents (Allegation 3) and various instances of disrespectful behavior towards residents (Allegation 1).
- •JO did not attend the appeal hearing but submitted extensive written evidence.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal in part.
- •The UT found mistakes of fact in the DBS's findings regarding Allegation 3 and parts of Allegation 1, but upheld other parts of Allegation 1.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with a DBS decision if based on a material mistake of fact or law.
PF v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC)
The burden of proof is on the DBS to establish relevant conduct; on appeal, the appellant must show a mistake of fact or law.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563
The decision on whether barring is 'appropriate' is not a question of law or fact for the UT; however, proportionality and rationality of the DBS's risk assessment can be challenged.
Disclosure and Barring Service v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 1575
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The UT found mistakes of fact in some of the DBS's findings but upheld others. The case was remitted to the DBS to reconsider whether barring was appropriate based on the confirmed findings of relevant conduct.