AB v DBS
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 134 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Safeguarding vulnerable groups - Adults’ barred list,Safeguarding vulnerable groups - Children’s barred list,Tribunal procedure,practice - precedence of decisions,Wikeley,N |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 31 May 2022 |
AB v DBS [2022] UKUT 134 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2021-001471-V
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER (formerly V/861/2021)
On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service
Between: A.B. Appellant
- v –
The Disclosure and Barring Service Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley
Upper Tribunal Member Josephine Heggie
Upper Tribunal Member John Hutchinson
Hearing date: 8 March 2022
Decision date: 11 May 2022
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Christopher Geering of Counsel, instructed by the RCN
Respondent: Mr Ashley Serr of Counsel, instructed by the DBS
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal by the Appellant.
The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) taken on 26 February
2021 to include the Appellant’s name in the Children’s and Adults’ Barred Lists
did not involve a material error on a point of law or fact. The DBS decision is
confirmed.
This decision and the Orders that follow are given under section 4(5) of the
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure
(Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698).
AB v DBS [2022] UKUT 134 (AAC)
Case no: UA-2021-001471-V
2
ORDERS UNDER RULE 14
Pursuant to rule 14(1)(a) the Upper Tribunal orders that no documents or
information should be disclosed in relation to these proceedings that would tend
to identify any person who has been involved in the circumstances giving rise
to this appeal.
Pursuant to rule 14(1)(b) the Upper Tribunal orders that there is to be no
publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public directly or
indirectly to identify the Appellant.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The outcome of this appeal to the Upper Tribunal in a sentence
1. This appeal is dismissed.
Some preliminary matters
2. This is Mr B’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s final decision,
dated 26 February 2021, to include him on both the Adults’ Barred List and the
Children’s Barred List under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (‘the
2006 Act’). We note for the record that this case was originally registered with the
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber as case number V/861/2021,
but has now been allocated an updated reference (UA-2021-001471-V) under the
Chamber’s new case management system.
3. We held a remote hearing of this appeal on 8 March 2022. The appeal had been
scheduled to be heard at a conventional face-to-face hearing in Leeds but was
changed at the 11th hour to a remote hearing with the agreement of all concerned
as a result of a Covid-19 related risk. We were satisfied it was fair and just to
proceed in this manner. There were no significant technological difficulties in the
hearing. The Appellant attended remotely but did not give evidence. He was ably
represented by Mr Christopher Geering of counsel. The Respondent (the
Disclosure and Barring Service) was equally ably represented by Mr Ashley Serr
of counsel. We are very grateful to both counsel for the careful and well-focussed
presentation of their respective cases.
The rule 14 Orders on this appeal
4. In this decision we refer to the Appellant as Mr B to preserve his privacy and
anonymity. For that reason, we make the rule 14 Orders included at the head of
this decision. We are satisfied that neither the Appellant nor his family should be
identified, directly by name or indirectly, in this decision. We are also satisfied
that any publication or disclosure that would tend to identify any person who has
been involved in the circumstances giving rise to this appeal would be likely to
cause serious harm to the Appellant and his family. Having regard to the interests
of justice, we were satisfied that it is proportionate to make the rule 14 Orders.
The background to the barring decision
5. Mr B is a nurse with many years’ professional experience. He has one daughter,
in her 20s. The police received intelligence that someone at Mr B’s home address
had been using an internet chat room to post that he had sexually abused his two
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
EB v Disclosure and Barring Service
...EB v Disclosure and Barring Service [2023] UKUT 105 (AAC) 17. Mr Lewis also drew our attention to AB v Disclosure and Barring Service [2022] UKUT 134 (AAC). In that case, the appellant had been included in the Children’s Barred List under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 on the basis that, althoug......