ME v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jones |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 63 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Jones,R |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 15 March 2022 |
ME v Disclosure and Barring Service
[2022] UKUT 63 (AAC)
V/2323/2019 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. V/2323/2019
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
ON APPEAL FROM
Appellant: ME
Respondent: Disclosure and Barring Service
DBS Ref No: DBS6063
Customer ref: 00907468466
DBS ID Number: P00018PMPYW
Between: ME Appellant
- v –
DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jones
Tribunal Member Ms J Cross
Tribunal Member Dr E Stuart-Cole
Hearing date: 22 November 2021
Representation:
Appellant: In Person
Respondent: Mr Simon Lewis, Counsel instructed on behalf of the DBS
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal of the Appellant.
The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service to include the Appellant’s
name in the Children’s Barred List taken on 24 July 2019 did not involve a
material mistake on a point of law or finding of fact. It is confirmed.
The Upper Tribunal further directs that there is to be no publication of any matter
or disclosure of any documents likely to lead members of the public directly or
indirectly to identify the Appellant or any person who has been involved in the
circumstances giving rise to this appeal.
ME v Disclosure and Barring Service [2022] UKUT 63 (AAC)
V/2323/2019 2
This decision and direction are given under section 4(5) of the Safeguarding
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper
Tribunal) Rules 2008.
Introduction
1. The Appellant appeals the decision of 24 July 2019 of the Respondent (the
Disclosure and Barring Service or ‘DBS’) to include his name in the Children’s
Barred List (“CBL”) pursuant to paragraph 2(8) of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (“the Act”).
2. Permission to appeal was granted by an Upper Tribunal Judge on the papers on 2
June 2020 in respect of all grounds raised by the Appellant in his notice of appeal
including additional grounds which the Judge considered were arguable of her own
motion.
3. We held an oral hearing of the appeal in Field House, London on 22 November
2021. The Appellant was present but unrepresented giving oral evidence and
making submissions. The Respondent DBS was represented by Mr Lewis of
counsel. We are very grateful to both the Appellant and counsel for the
presentation of their cases.
Rule 14 order - Anonymity
4. At the outset of the hearing we made an order that there is to be no publication of
any matter likely to lead members of the public directly or indirectly to identify the
Appellant or any person who has been involved in the circumstances giving rise to
this appeal pursuant to rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)
Rules 2008. We are satisfied that the Appellant (‘ME’), should not be identified,
directly by name or indirectly, in this decision.
5. The Appellant’s application for an order under rule 14 was not opposed by Mr Lewis
for the DBS. We concluded that on balance it was just and fair to make the order
sought. Even though the Appellant has a caution for the offence of possessing
bestial (animal) pornographic images and videos, this did not occur in public
criminal proceedings and the caution did not involve indecent images of children.
A significant part of the Appellant’s case in the Upper Tribunal relates to the
inference that might be incorrectly drawn by the public from inclusion on the CBL,
something which may attract particular public opprobrium and a risk of vigilantism.
6. We are satisfied that publication or disclosure of the Appellant’s inclusion on the
CBL would be likely to cause serious harm to the Appellant or his family given the
nature of the allegation. There is a real possibility that his inclusion on the CBL
would be wrongly interpreted as involving allegations or a finding that the Appellant
was a paedophile, had been convicted of sexual offence involving children or had
a sexual interest in children. Having regard to the interests of justice, we were
satisfied that it is proportionate to give such a direction. Revealing to the public the
nature of the allegations or that the Appellant was included on the Children’s
Barred list would be likely to cause the Appellant or his family serious emotional,
psychological, physical (and reputational) harm.
To continue reading
Request your trial