AW v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2024] UKUT 258 (AAC)
VM v Disclosure and Barring Service
21 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 220 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A care home worker was barred from working with children and vulnerable adults. She appealed, claiming the decision was wrong. The court looked at all the evidence and decided that even though some minor mistakes were made, there was enough evidence to show she had done wrong. Therefore, the ban remained in place.
Key Facts
- •VM, a deputy manager at a residential care home, was included on the Children's Barred List (CBL) and the Adults' Barred List (ABL) by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
- •The DBS found VM engaged in relevant conduct, including failing to support service users, falsifying records, and making inappropriate comments.
- •VM appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing mistakes of fact and law in the DBS's decision.
- •The UT heard oral evidence from VM and reviewed the evidence before the DBS.
- •The UT found VM's evidence unreliable in most instances but upheld a mistake of fact in one finding and a mistake of law in another, however, these were deemed non-material to the overall decision.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal's jurisdiction on appeal is limited to reviewing mistakes of law or material mistakes of fact made by the DBS; the appropriateness of the barring decision is not reviewable.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 4(3)
A mistake of fact must be material to the decision to be grounds for appeal.
PF v DBS UKUT [2020] 256 AAC
The UT can consider all evidence, including that not before the DBS, and make its own findings of fact, but must give appropriate weight to the DBS's findings in areas of its expertise.
PF v DBS UKUT [2020] 256 AAC
Proportionality of a barring decision is assessed using the four questions outlined in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167.
R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of Stage for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 621
Outcomes
The UT dismissed VM's appeal.
While the UT found some mistakes of fact and law in the DBS's findings, these were not material to the overall decision. The remaining evidence overwhelmingly supported the DBS's conclusion that VM engaged in relevant conduct justifying inclusion on both barred lists.