NNM v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - proportionality) [2026] UKUT 3 (AAC) (31 December 2025)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) considered NNM’s appeal against DBS’s inclusion of him in the children’s barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that DBS had not made a mistake of law or fact and confirmed the decision, finding the barring decision proportionate on the basis that NNM’s attitudes and parenting style could affect his ability to recognise safeguarding issues and work collaboratively in regulated activity as a teacher.

Key points

• Parties: NNM appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Holding: DBS’s inclusion of NNM in the children’s barred list was confirmed; the tribunal found no legal or factual mistake.
• Reasoning: DBS relied on findings of poor parenting, physical abuse, exposure of the child to domestic violence, and failure to meet emotional needs, not on repetition of that conduct with pupils.
• Reasoning: The tribunal accepted that DBS’s concern was about NNM’s willingness to recognise safeguarding concerns and work with social services or other professionals in teaching.
• Procedure: The tribunal confined itself to the grounds for which permission to appeal had been granted and noted NNM had not applied to expand those grounds.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: No sanctions or export-control issue appears in the decision; the case is about child barring and safeguarding, not national security controls.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to compliance and risk screening in regulated activity because it confirms that personal conduct outside the workplace can support exclusion where it bears on safeguarding competence and collaboration. It does not create sanctions or export-control precedent, but it shows how tribunals assess proportionality when a regulator links private conduct to public-protection risk.

Implications

For employers and regulators, the case reinforces that safeguarding decisions can rest on inferences about judgment, attitude, and cooperation with professionals, even absent direct harm to clients or pupils. For appellants, it underscores the need to challenge the specific factual basis of barring decisions and, if necessary, seek permission to broaden appeal grounds; otherwise the Upper Tribunal will stay within the granted issues and is likely to defer to DBS absent a clear error.