Olliers’ DBS Team Recent Case Studies  

Olliers’ DBS team share some of their most recent successful Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) ‘Minded to Bar’ cases where we have successfully argued against inclusion on the DBS Barred List. 

DBS case studies 

Client A – DBS Minded to Bar – avoided inclusion on the DBS Barred List

Client A had over 15 previous convictions of fraud against vulnerable adults, possession of offensive weapons, GBH, wounding, battery and other serious offences. The DBS believed, on the balance of probabilities, that Client A now posed a risk to children because of their numerous convictions, despite having spent many years previously as a sports coach.

It became apparent that the historic allegations of fraud were from when Client A had set up their own business as a tradesperson, straight from college, and was not fully aware of the relevant statutory guidelines required between consumer and provider, such as cooling off periods and cancellation rights. Whilst Client A readily accepted that their conduct at the time amounted to fraud, it was put forward this was due to lack of knowledge, experience and the relevant paperwork put in place. 

The convictions relating to firearms offences and possession of offensive weapons all relate to workplace matters and carrying bladed articles under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998), albeit not in a work vehicle or at a normal work hour. The conviction for wounding was as a result of a bar fight from 2013. The conviction for battery was as a result of an altercation between themselves and the driver of another vehicle who tried to make off without providing their insurance details. The conviction for GBH was as a result of an incident involving a pellet gun, tin can shooting and a friend unwisely running in front of the ‘shooting arena’ to replace the targets.

All convictions were admitted at the earliest opportunity and we argued that all would remain on an enhanced DBS check, but none of the convictions were offences against children.

We were able to persuade the DBS, using strong character references, that Client A was not a risk to children and was invaluable in the community in terms of their involvement in the local sports clubs. We obtained a successful result in this case in that Client A was not included on the Barred List.

Client B – DBS Minded to Bar – avoided inclusion on the DBS Barred List

Client B was accused of failing to maintain professional boundaries whilst employed as a teacher by accompanying a student on holiday, spending time with the student outside of school and inappropriately messaging using snapchat/WeChat.

We were able to argue that there were many inaccuracies and misinformation in the original referral to the DBS, such as the omission of Client B having a formal diagnosis of bipolar disorder prior to moving to Thailand and being very stable whilst in the UK. Whilst employed as a teacher in Thailand, Client B was provided with a cocktail of prescription medication to manage their disorder which, on returning to the UK and obtaining medical guidance, were more suited to depression, anxiety, epilepsy, psychosis and schizophrenia than bipolar (Client C required intense medical intervention during withdrawal when they returned to the UK). The consequent side effects presented as lethargy, stress, acting out of character, exhibiting poor thinking skills and lack of judgement and an inability to cope. To add to this, Client B’s longstanding friend had taken their own life prior to the allegations and the same day that Client B was informed, they were required to work a full day and then undertake parent-teacher consultations until well after 8pm.

We were able to contextualise the allegation that Client B accompanied a student on a family holiday; the student’s father had discovered that Client B was due to visit their region and the student’s father simply gave Client B some travel guidance and insisted they meet for lunch during Client B’s time there. This conversation was witnessed by a member of staff, and we were able to obtain a statement to confirm the same; it was an offer from the parent. The allegation of contact was admitted but in context was related to the trip and no sexual intent was found.

Client B presented us with many positive character references, some from their time in Thailand and we were able to obtain a successful result for Client B in that they were not included on the Barred List.

Client C – Minded to Bar – avoided inclusion on the DBS Barred List

Client C was accused of having sexual contact with a 4-year-old child and was being investigated for both the Children’s and Vulnerable Adult’s Barred lists.

Client C was employed at a nursery which, at the time of their employment, was going through a staff crisis. New staff were brought in to replace many long-term staff leaving and little to no immediate training was provided, resulting in teething issues. Further, prior to commencing their employment at the nursery, Client C’s mother attempted suicide. Client C had been on antidepressants for a number of years and their mental health issues had never led to any safeguarding  incidents in the workplace, nor outside of it. Issues presented usually as low mood and spiralling thoughts, but the sudden shock of their parent’s suicide attempt obviously had a significant impact.

We were able to obtain a medical report which showed that Client C switched medication a day after the suicide attempt as they felt their current medication was having little effect. Switching medications can have significant side effects which exacerbated Client C’s low mood and spiralling thoughts so much so that they disclosed to their employers an incident which occurred 12 years prior.  Client C disclosed that when they were 12 they were inappropriately touched by an older child and, following this experience, Client C had then gone home and, copying the behaviour, touched their younger sister. There was a police investigation which was immediately closed with no further action and deemed to be child experimentation. In fact, the police had never disclosed this information previously on an enhanced DBS certificate.

Client C has always admitted the incident occurred, but appropriate context needed to be given to the DBS and the comments that lead to the original referral were misrepresented.  This incident only happened on one occasion, but this disclosure was misrepresented as ‘many times’ in the employment investigation. Further, Client C disclosed she was suffering from ‘spiralling thoughts’, however, this was misrepresented as reoccurring thoughts of sexual abuse that were being triggered by working in a nursery.

We were able to provide a supportive report by Client C’s therapist in which they confirmed that Client C has never expressed any thoughts of harming a child, the thoughts were merely flashbacks to the incident. We also argued that no vulnerable adult was at risk of harm.

We obtained a positive result for Client C and they were not included on the Barred List.

Read more successful Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) ‘Minded to Bar’ cases here.  

Olliers Solicitors – Specialist Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) Lawyers 

At Olliers, we have a Specialist DBS team dealing with Minded to Bar cases. Our lawyers have extensive experience of drafting and submitting representations to the Disclosure and Barring Service. The team at Olliers are here to listen, empathise, understand and assist with your DBS case.

The team will present your case in the best possible way using our expertise and experience to advise on the best evidence to support our representations.

Please contact Nathalie Potter, Head of Olliers’ DBS department  on 0161 834 1515 or by email to nathaliepotter@olliers.com  to discuss how Olliers can assist you if you have received a ‘minded to bar’ letter from the DBS or have subsequently been placed on the barred list.