AK v Disclosure and Barring Service

AK v Disclosure and Barring Service

The Upper Tribunal found that the DBS's decision to bar AK was based on material mistakes of fact, as the evidence relied upon was untested hearsay and AK's tested oral evidence was consistent, credible, and supported by contemporaneous records. The Tribunal accepted that AK's examinations were clinically...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: AK; Respondent: Disclosure and Barring Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From DBS Barring Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mistake of Fact, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Barred Lists, Procedural Fairness, Medical Professional Misconduct
Administrative Law Safeguarding Law Professional Regulation Mistake of Fact Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 Barred Lists Procedural Fairness Medical Professional Misconduct

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AK

Appellant

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From DBS Barring Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DBS made a material mistake of fact in finding that AK sexually touched two patients during medical examinations
  2. 2 Whether AK engaged in 'relevant conduct' under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 justifying inclusion on barred lists

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal found that the DBS's decision to bar AK was based on material mistakes of fact, as the evidence relied upon was untested hearsay and AK's tested oral evidence was consistent, credible, and supported by contemporaneous records. The Tribunal accepted that AK's examinations were clinically appropriate and not sexually motivated, and thus he did not engage in 'relevant conduct' under the SVGA. There was no basis for his inclusion on the barred lists.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Disclosure and Barring Service is directed to remove AK’s name from both the children’s barred list and the adults’ barred list.