Disclosure and Barring Service v RI

Disclosure and Barring Service v RI

Where the Upper Tribunal hears oral evidence from an appellant not before the DBS and finds the appellant credible, it is entitled to find that the DBS made a mistake of fact and to overturn the DBS's decision to include the appellant in the barred list. The UT's jurisdiction is not limited to cases of irrationality...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Disclosure and Barring Service; Respondent: RI
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal on Findings of Fact, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Mistake of Fact Jurisdiction, Inclusion in Barred List, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Appeal on Findings of Fact Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 Mistake of Fact Jurisdiction Inclusion in Barred List Procedural Fairness

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Disclosure and Barring Service

Appellant

RI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the mistake of fact jurisdiction under s.4(2) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Tribunal was entitled to overturn the DBS's finding that RI stole money from a vulnerable adult based on oral evidence not before the DBS
  3. 3 Whether the Upper Tribunal failed to consider material evidence or made unsupported inferences

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Upper Tribunal hears oral evidence from an appellant not before the DBS and finds the appellant credible, it is entitled to find that the DBS made a mistake of fact and to overturn the DBS's decision to include the appellant in the barred list. The UT's jurisdiction is not limited to cases of irrationality or where new documentary evidence is adduced; oral evidence and credibility findings are sufficient to establish a mistake of fact under s.4(2)(b) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the Disclosure and Barring Service is dismissed.
  • No order for the restoration of RI's name to the barred list.