GU v The Disclosure and Barring Service

On an appeal against discretionary barring, the Upper Tribunal may consider all the evidence, including oral evidence received at the hearing, to decide whether the DBS made a material mistake of fact. It may make its own factual findings where the evidence warrants that course.

The Tribunal cannot displace a barring decision merely because it takes a different view of the appropriateness of inclusion. That evaluative assessment remains for the DBS unless a mistake of law or material fact is established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Where no such mistake is shown, the Tribunal must confirm the decision.

The DBS included GU in both the adults’ and children’s barred lists after finding, on the balance of probabilities, that he had physically and emotionally abused his former wife and stepchildren. The decision was made under the relevant-conduct route in Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

GU appealed, contending that the allegations were false and that the DBS had made mistakes of fact. Permission was granted because he proposed to give oral evidence and to call witnesses. At the hearing, only GU and a friend gave evidence; the friend had no direct knowledge of the allegations. GU also contended that barring was disproportionate.

The central issue was whether the DBS had made a material mistake of fact or law in deciding to include GU on the barred lists.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal found no mistake of fact or law in the DBS decision and confirmed GU’s inclusion in both barred lists.

2. Under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the Tribunal’s task was to determine whether the DBS had made a mistake of law or a material mistake in a factual finding on which its decision was based. The Tribunal could consider all the evidence before it, including GU’s oral evidence, and make its own factual findings. It was not confined to the paper material considered by the DBS.

3. The Tribunal assessed GU’s oral account against the evidence as a whole. His proposed direct witnesses did not attend, and the sole witness gave character evidence only. GU did not provide the alleged supporting text messages. The Tribunal found his evidence unconvincing, inconsistent in places and lacking clarity. It accepted that the evidence before the DBS provided a credible account of physical and emotional abuse of GU’s former wife and stepchildren.

4. The assessment of whether inclusion on a barred list is appropriate remains for the DBS under section 4(3). The Tribunal could not simply remake that evaluative decision because it disagreed with it. GU’s previous good character, charitable work and the effect on his employment did not establish an error of law. On the accepted evidence of abuse and the resulting safeguarding risks, barring him from regulated work with children and vulnerable adults was not shown to be disproportionate.

5. As GU had not demonstrated a material factual or legal error, section 4(5) required confirmation of the DBS decision.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed GU’s appeal and confirmed the DBS decision: [2025] UKUT 202 (AAC).
• Disclosure and Barring Service: decided to include GU in both the adults’ and children’s barred lists following its final decision of 3 October 2022.