KCN v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups) [2026] UKUT 56 (AAC) (05 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal considered KCN’s appeal against DBS inclusion of him in both the children’s and adults’ barred lists under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that DBS had not made any mistake of law or fact and confirmed DBS’s decision, notwithstanding KCN’s Crown Court acquittal on the criminal charges arising from the same allegations.

Key points

• Parties: KCN appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service; the case was heard in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
• Holding: DBS’s decision to include KCN in the children’s barred list and adults’ barred list was confirmed.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal accepted that DBS could find the underlying allegation proved on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) even though KCN had been acquitted in the Crown Court.
• Facts relied on: the allegation was that KCN kissed an adult service user, fondled her breasts, and forced her to suck his penis on 04/12/2017.
• Statutory basis: Schedule 3 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006; the appeal was limited to mistakes of law or fact under section 4.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no sanctions or export-control issue appears in the judgment; the relevance is to safeguarding barring and regulatory risk, not trade controls.

Why it matters

The decision confirms that DBS barring can rest on conduct found proved on the civil standard even after a criminal acquittal, which increases regulatory exposure for individuals working with vulnerable people. For geopolitical or sovereign-risk screening, it is relevant as a signal that UK safeguarding determinations can impose serious professional restrictions independently of criminal proceedings.

Implications

Compliance teams and employers cannot treat a criminal acquittal as dispositive in DBS-related risk assessments; safeguarding findings may still justify exclusion from regulated activity. In litigation, the key battleground remains whether DBS made a legal or factual mistake, since the Tribunal will not re-run the merits or revisit appropriateness if no such error is shown.