Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Upper Tribunal allowed MM’s appeal against DBS barring him from the children’s barred list, finding DBS gave inadequate reasons and remitted the matter for a fresh decision.
Paragraph 11 of the SHPO does not conflict with the statutory barring regime and is justified by a real risk of unsupervised contact with children outside the scope of regulated activity; the risk is sufficient to warrant its inclusion given the appellant's dangerousness and the need to protect children.
Source excerpt
Thorpe v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 1007 (30 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a Sexual Harm Prevention Order term barring employment likely to bring the appellant into unsupervised contact with children under 16.
The Upper Tribunal allowed JO’s appeal against DBS barring, found an error of law in excluding material evidence about the sleeping allegation, and remitted the case for a fresh decision.
The Upper Tribunal found material mistakes of fact in most DBS findings against AVS, allowed the appeal, and remitted the barring decision.
Upper Tribunal upheld DBS barring of a midday supervisor from the Children’s Barred List. One factual error was found, but it was not material.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed XYZ’s appeal against DBS barring him from work with children, holding there was no material mistake of fact or law.
The Upper Tribunal upheld DBs barring decisions, holding that passage of time alone did not displace risk, and that inclusion on the children’s list did not require proof of sexual interest in children.
The Tribunal dismissed an appeal against refusal to extend Approved Driving Instructor registration, finding the appellant failed the fit and proper person test.
The Court of Appeal held that disclosure of disputed allegations in an enhanced criminal record certificate was disproportionate because it failed to address the ISA’s decision not to bar the applicant.
Explore more
