WP v Disclosure and Barring Service

WP v Disclosure and Barring Service

The Tribunal found the evidence of the pupils, specifically MS, credible and corroborated, rejected the suggestion of a conspiracy, and found no mistake of fact in the DBS’s decision to include the appellant on the barred lists. The DBS did not err in law by acting before the conclusion of criminal proceedings, as the standard of proof is lower and safeguarding may require prompt action.

Parties
Appellant: WP; Respondent: Disclosure and Barring Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups, Barred List Appeals, Mistake of Fact, Relevant Conduct, Standard of Proof
Administrative Law Safeguarding Law Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Barred List Appeals Mistake of Fact Relevant Conduct Standard of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WP

Appellant

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DBS made a mistake of fact in including the appellant on the children’s and adults’ barred lists
  2. 2 Whether the DBS erred in law by not waiting for the conclusion of criminal proceedings before making its decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the evidence of the pupils, specifically MS, credible and corroborated, rejected the suggestion of a conspiracy, and found no mistake of fact in the DBS’s decision to include the appellant on the barred lists. The DBS did not err in law by acting before the conclusion of criminal proceedings, as the standard of proof is lower and safeguarding may require prompt action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service to include the appellant on the children’s and adults’ barred lists is confirmed.