JHB v The Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 367 (AAC)
PM v Disclosure and Barring Service
3 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 160 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man was banned from working with children and vulnerable adults. He appealed, arguing some of the reasons were wrong. The court reviewed the evidence and decided the ban was fair because his actions, even if not intentionally harmful, showed a pattern of being insensitive and inappropriate towards vulnerable people.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) decision to include the Appellant (PM) in the children's and adults' barred lists.
- •DBS's decision was based on PM's 1995 caution for indecent assault, 1995 conviction for destroying property, and findings from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) concerning inappropriate behavior towards patients and colleagues (2013-2016).
- •Additional findings were based on PM's conduct during a probationary period at a care home in 2020, including incidents of providing substandard care, insensitivity towards residents, and inappropriate remarks.
- •Permission to appeal was granted only on the grounds of arguable mistakes in the 2020 probationary period findings.
Legal Principles
Right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a DBS decision is limited to mistakes of law or fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Section 4(2)
The decision on appropriateness of inclusion in a barred list is not a question of law or fact.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Section 4(3)
Relevant conduct includes conduct endangering a child/vulnerable adult or likely to endanger them.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Schedule 3, paragraphs 3, 4, 9, 10
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found no material factual mistakes in the DBS's 2020 probationary period findings. While some incidents were accepted by PM, the Tribunal concluded that PM's interactions with vulnerable adults demonstrated insensitivity and inappropriateness, even if unintentional.