JLA v Disclosure And Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 286 (AAC)
JW v Disclosure and Barring Service
9 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A care worker, JW, was wrongly added to a list of banned workers because important details were missed. A court reviewed the case and said the decision was wrong because of missing information about JW's job, the care needs of the person she cared for, and problems with how the care home was managed. The court sent the case back to be decided again, but the care worker will stay on the banned list until the new decision is made.
Key Facts
- •JW, a care assistant, was included in the children's and adults' barred lists by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) following an incident involving a service user, Miss X.
- •The incident involved JW preventing Miss X from leaving her room on multiple occasions, causing emotional distress.
- •JW's actions were deemed 'relevant conduct' under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
- •JW appealed the DBS's decision, arguing that important contextual facts were omitted.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found that the DBS omitted crucial context regarding JW's role, Miss X's care requirements, and the care home's management dysfunction.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal can only overturn a DBS decision if a mistake of law or fact was made.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(2)
A mistake of fact can be an incorrect finding, an incomplete finding, or an omission.
PF v DBS [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC) at [39]
The decision of whether or not 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)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The DBS made a mistake in its finding of fact by omitting important contextual information about JW's role, Miss X's care requirements, and the care home's management issues.
The matter was remitted to the DBS for a new decision.
The UT found that the omission of relevant context was material and could have affected the DBS's decision. The DBS must now reconsider the appropriateness of including JW in the barred lists, taking into account the UT's findings of fact.
JW remains included in the barred lists pending the DBS's new decision.
The UT deemed it appropriate to maintain JW's inclusion in the lists until the DBS makes a new decision, to avoid unnecessary procedural delays.