CC v Disclosure and Barring Service (SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS) [2026] UKUT 64 (AAC) (09 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal dismissed CC’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s final decision to keep her on both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List. It held that the DBS had made no material mistake of fact or law in finding, on the balance of probabilities, that she had engaged in relevant conduct during physiotherapy appointments with three adult clients and that barring was appropriate and proportionate.

Key points

• Parties: CC (a physiotherapist) v the Disclosure and Barring Service, in an appeal under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 regime.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; DBS decision to retain CC on both barred lists upheld.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal accepted the DBS had lawfully relied on documentary evidence from the employer’s disciplinary process and found no material error in its factual findings or proportionality assessment.
• Facts relied on: the DBS found inappropriate, boundary-breaching conduct toward three adult male clients, including unnecessary touching and sexualised comments; CC denied the allegations.
• Related proceedings: CC had been acquitted in criminal proceedings on one allegation, but the Tribunal noted the DBS barring decision was based on the civil standard and separate statutory test.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no sanctions or export-control issue is addressed; the case is a safeguarding and professional-barring decision with potential employment and regulatory consequences.

Why it matters

For national security and sovereign-risk audiences, the case shows how a UK safeguarding regulator can impose a career-ending restriction on a professional without a criminal conviction, using a civil standard and documentary evidence. That matters for compliance screening and workforce-risk controls in sensitive sectors where access to vulnerable people is regulated and reputational or personnel risk can cascade quickly.

Implications

Employers and regulated bodies should not assume that acquittal or absence of criminal charges will neutralize DBS barring action; disciplinary records and witness accounts can be enough to sustain exclusion from regulated activity. For litigation strategy, the decision underscores the importance of challenging the evidential basis and proportionality of a barring case early, because the Tribunal will focus on whether the DBS made a material error rather than re-trying the underlying allegations de novo.