DS v Disclosure and Barring Service
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jacobs |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 327 (AAC),[2016] UKUT 327 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Safeguarding vulnerable groups,Safeguarding vulnerable groups - Adults’ barred list,Jacobs,E |
| Date | 11 July 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
DS v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2016] UKUT 0327 (AAC)
UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: V/0628/2016
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
2006 (SVGA):
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), in its decision notified on 25
November 2015 under reference 08/57486 (DIT) including DS on the Children’s
Barred List, did not make mistakes in law or in the findings of fact on which its
decision was based.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules
2008, the appellant is granted ANONYMITY. No report of these
proceedings (in whatever form) shall directly or indirectly identify him
or any member of his family. Failure to comply with this order could
lead to a contempt of court.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. History
1. We refer to the history of this case only in so far as it is necessary in order to
make our decision intelligible. We refer in more detail to some of the evidence
when we come to the arguments of counsel.
2. DS has been subject to two sets of allegations concerning boys: one set was
in 1998 (sometimes referred to as historic in the argument before us) and the
other in 2010. The former involved DS’s cousin; the latter involved a teenager
whom DS was mentoring under the Youth Offender Team programme. Both sets
of allegations led to a number of criminal charges from which DS was acquitted,
in one case on the direction of the trial judge.
3. The 1998 allegations concerned DS’s male cousin. The incidents were said to
have occurred between 1991 and 1995 when the cousin was between 9 and 14
years old. They involved oral and manual masturbation while they were on
holiday with other members of the family. This led to eight charges of indecent
assault and gross indecency with a child. DS denied the charges and was
acquitted.
4. The 2010 allegations concern LR, who was 13 at the time. He alleged two
incidents. One occurred when he was sharing a tent with DS on a camping trip.
He claimed that DS had touched his penis. The other occurred when he was
staying overnight at DS’s flat. He claimed that he had to share DS’s bed, as the
airbed that he had used on previous visits was not inflated, and that DS
masturbated him manually during the night. This led to two charges of sexual
assault on a male. The judge directed the jury to find him not guilty in respect of
To continue reading
Request your trial