Click the case name for better results:

XY v The Independent Safeguarding Authority: UTAA 18 Jul 2011

The appellant had been placed on the adult’s barred list despite having been acquitted of the criminal offence of which he had been accused. Held: This was the first time such a matter had come before the Upper Tribunal. The court considered the background to the Act, and the proper procedures for its application. Judges: … Continue reading XY v The Independent Safeguarding Authority: UTAA 18 Jul 2011

PF v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups): UTAA 27 Aug 2020

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 – section 4(2)(b) – mistake of fact – interpretation and application – relevance of specialist expertise of Disclosure and Barring Service in assessing evidence. Citations: [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health Professions Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.656578

Khakh v Independent Safeguarding Authority: CA 6 Nov 2013

The 2006 Act provided that the judge in the Crown Court ‘must inform the person at the time he is convicted’ that his name would be included on the statutory barring lists. The judge had failed to do so. The claimant objjcted to the inclusion of his name. Held: Explaining why Parliament cannot fairly have … Continue reading Khakh v Independent Safeguarding Authority: CA 6 Nov 2013

A v DBS: UTAA 11 May 2022

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 – adults’ barred list and children’s barred list – ‘relevant conduct’ and ‘risk of harm’ – scope of right of appeal to Upper Tribunal relating to matters of risk – DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 1575 and PF v DBS [2020] UKUT 256 (AAC); [2021] AACR 2 considered Citations: … Continue reading A v DBS: UTAA 11 May 2022

D v Buckinghamshire County Council: CA 10 Dec 2008

Hedley J explained the background to the 2006 Act, saying: ‘This multiplicity of lists and division of responsibilities was always likely to provide fertile soil for confusion and error as was pointed out in the Report in June 2004 of the Bichard Inquiry. As a result Parliament legislated again and there came on to the … Continue reading D v Buckinghamshire County Council: CA 10 Dec 2008

DF v Disclosure and Barring Service: UTAA 23 Apr 2015

UTAA Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including UT) : Evidence – Permission to appeal against the decisions of the Independent Safeguarding Authority dated 14 November 2012 and of the Disclosure and Barring Service dated 31 October 2013 is granted. However, the appeals against those decisions and the decision of the Independent Safeguarding Authority dated 12 June … Continue reading DF v Disclosure and Barring Service: UTAA 23 Apr 2015

Zinda v Ark Schools: EAT 14 Nov 2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Compromise – A compromise agreement containing a term (clause 5(a)) that: ‘The Employer agrees not directly or indirectly to publish or otherwise make any statement in respect of you which is intended to or might reasonably be expected to damage your reputation or be detrimental to or otherwise critical of … Continue reading Zinda v Ark Schools: EAT 14 Nov 2014

Jeff v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Oct 2014

The applicants challenged the way they had been added to the list of people barred from working with children. The system (until amended) only allowed them to challenge the addition after their name had been added. 31127/11 – Communicated Case, [2014] ECHR 1183 Bailii European Convention on Human Rights, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Protection … Continue reading Jeff v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Oct 2014

MG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (V): UTAA 21 Mar 2022

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups – discusses circumstances in which risks identified in relation to a sexual offence against an adult can be said to be ‘transferable’ to regulated activity with children – given SVGA 2006 definition of children (under the age of 18) there is no requirement that the person in question must have any particular … Continue reading MG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (V): UTAA 21 Mar 2022