SS v The Disclosure and Barring Service

An appeal against a barring decision under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is confined to mistakes of law or mistakes in findings of fact on which the decision was based. Whether inclusion in a barred list is appropriate is not itself a question of law or fact.

The Upper Tribunal may assess the evidence and make its own findings, while giving appropriate weight to findings of a competent regulatory body. Consistency in an appellant’s account does not establish its truth, and inconsistencies in a complainant’s account may be explained by the passage of time and trauma. Strong character evidence does not necessarily negate a specific finding of harmful conduct.

The Disclosure and Barring Service decided on 15 December 2023 to include SS in both the adults’ and children’s barred lists. The decision followed findings by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service that SS had sexually motivatedly touched and examined a patient without clinical justification, consent or appropriate safeguards, and his consequent erasure from the medical register. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

SS appealed to the Upper Tribunal, alleging mistakes of fact and law. He relied on inconsistencies in the patient’s accounts, the consistency of his own account, police and workplace investigations, his self-referral to the GMC, and extensive character evidence. The central issues were whether the DBS had made a mistake of fact or law and whether the conduct constituted relevant conduct for barring purposes.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The regulated activity requirement was met because SS had been engaged in regulated activity as a GP trainee.

2. Under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the Tribunal could intervene only for a mistake of law or a mistake in a finding of fact on which the DBS decision was based. The appropriateness of inclusion in a barred list was excluded as an independent question of law or fact.

3. The Tribunal was not bound by the MPTS findings. It was required to assess the evidence before it, including the transcripts and other material, while giving the MPTS findings appropriate weight. The Tribunal accepted that Patient A’s evidence was compelling and that the MPTS had evaluated it through a series of evidential building blocks. The High Court had dismissed the appeal against the MPTS decision.

4. SS’s consistent account was a matter to consider but did not make it true. The inconsistencies in Patient A’s evidence did not require rejection of her account because the MPTS had reasonably attributed them to the passage of time and trauma, while finding the core allegations clear and consistent. The absence of oral evidence from Patient A before the Upper Tribunal did not alter the result because the full transcript and the MPTS and High Court decisions were available.

5. The DBS had not made a mistake of law in treating the proved conduct as relevant conduct. Although the conduct was not directed at a child, its sexual nature and the findings made provided adequate grounds to conclude that similar conduct could be repeated in relation to a post-pubescent child.

6. The DBS had considered the character statements and employment history. Their evidence of good character and professional conduct did not necessarily negate the possibility of the specific conduct alleged, which had occurred privately between SS and Patient A.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed SS’s appeal against the DBS decision on 8 December 2025.
• High Court: dismissed SS’s appeal against the MPTS decision to erase him from the medical register on 13 July 2023.
• Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service: found the allegations proved and erased SS from the medical register on 9 December 2022.