PC v Disclosure and Barring Service

PC v Disclosure and Barring Service

The Upper Tribunal found that while there were minor factual errors in the DBS’s decision, none were material to the risk assessment or outcome. The appellant’s sexual interest in images of persons who look like children, regardless of his belief in disclaimers or his ASD, posed a sufficient risk to justify barring. The decision was proportionate and compatible with the appellant’s rights under the ECHR. The appeal was dismissed as there was no material mistake of fact or law.

Parties
Appellant: PC; Respondent: Disclosure and Barring Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Barring Decisions, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Proportionality, Mistake of Fact or Law, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Legal Capacity, Anonymity Orders
Administrative Law Safeguarding Law Human Rights Barring Decisions Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 Proportionality Mistake of Fact or Law Autism Spectrum Disorder and Legal Capacity +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PC

Appellant

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) made a material mistake of fact or law in including the appellant on the children’s barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the barring decision was disproportionate and incompatible with the appellant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the appellant’s Autism Spectrum Disorder was properly considered in the risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal found that while there were minor factual errors in the DBS’s decision, none were material to the risk assessment or outcome. The appellant’s sexual interest in images of persons who look like children, regardless of his belief in disclaimers or his ASD, posed a sufficient risk to justify barring. The decision was proportionate and compatible with the appellant’s rights under the ECHR. The appeal was dismissed as there was no material mistake of fact or law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service is confirmed.
  • The appellant remains included on the children’s barred list.