DBS Minded to Bar Success

Olliers successfully act for many clients who have received a Minded to Bar Letter and the DBS are considering inclusion on the Barred List, or we can request the Disclosure and Barring Service review your case after inclusion on the Barred List (known as a Paragraph 18 Review) if we are able to provide them with:

• Information they did not have at the time of originally placing you on the Barred List;
• Information pertaining to a change in your circumstances; or
• Information that the Disclosure and Barring Service have made an error.

The strongest of cases would be to provide the Disclosure and Barring Service with further information that you may not have considered to be of importance. This could include (but is not limited to) evidence such as specialist assessments; medical reports; probation reports; successful appeals against criminal convictions; successful appeals against other regulatory bodies in relation to fitness to practice hearings details of work undertaken since inclusion on the barred list and testimonials or character statements in support of the removal from the barred list.

Olliers’ Disclosure & Barring Service team share some of their most recent successful Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) ‘Minded to Bar’ and ‘Paragraph 18A Review’ cases.  

Client A – DBS Paragraph 18A Review – removed from Barred List following successful representations

Client A had previously been convicted of possession of extreme pornography and, upon receipt of the Minded to Bar letter, made their own representations. Client A was placed on the Children’s Barred List as a result. We were instructed to apply for a review of their inclusion on the Barred List and, following consultation with the client, it became apparent that the DBS had not taken the full facts of the conviction into consideration.

Client A was a serving police officer at the time of their arrest. They had a series of promotions over a relatively short period of time but this led to pressures within their marriage, resulting in a separation. Client A then engaged in a relationship with an ex-partner and, owing to the deterioration of the previous relationship and Client A’s declining mental health, their judgement had become impaired, and they were allowing themselves to be emotionally and physically abused. The partner was dependant on drugs and alcohol, was extremely controlling/manipulative and had violent tendencies. The relationship was toxic, accusations of sexual abuse/rape were made and, as result of these allegations, Client A’s phone was seized and examined. A very small number of images were found that had been sent by the partner to Client A and, as a result, Client A pleaded guilty to possession at the very first opportunity, receiving full credit.

We successfully argued against their continued inclusion on the Children’s Barred List on the basis that there was no evidence to suggest Client A searched for extreme pornography themselves and that absolutely no material was found to suggest that Client A was a risk to children.

Client B – DBS Minded to Bar – avoided inclusion on DBS Barred List after successful representations

Client B was accused of engaging in an inappropriate conversation in front of a service user, causing them to become agitated and violent and, when Client B used restraint, it was used with such force as to cause actual bodily harm.

We were able to demonstrate on behalf of Client B that, following their unblemished career in the domiciliary care sector, Client B had only been assigned to the service user on a handful of occasions and the service user had a long history of assaulting new carers unfamiliar to themselves. We were able to evidence that the care company in question required improvement following a Care and Quality Commission (CQC) investigation and that the management had breached a number of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. Client B raised concerns with the care company on several occasions and it was felt that Client B was referred to the DBS as punishment for whistleblowing.

In this specific incident, Client B became trapped by the service user against a door/wall (despite there being two other carers in the property) and was being physically assaulted; hitting, biting and smacking. Client B explained they had a split second to assess the situation and determined that they were at risk of serious harm owing to the service user’s comparative size. However, the service user was also at risk of harm as they were standing in front of a table. Rather than simply pushing the service user away, which could have potentially resulted in serious harm to the service user, Client B admitted to restraining the service user in order to prevent both of them from injury. Client B adamantly denied using inappropriate language.

We argued that the DBS had presented the situation in a contradictory manner; had the two other carers been able to hear any inappropriate language then, arguably, they would also have been within a short distance to assist Client B in dealing with the assault, therefore preventing any injury or any need for restraint. We successfully persuaded the DBS that both scenarios couldn’t exist; either the client had made inappropriate comments within earshot of the two other carers and they then left Client B in a vulnerable position and witnessed the assault, or that Client B had not made comments and sustained an assault at the hands of the service user resulting in an argument for self-defence.

The representations were successful, and Client B was not placed on the barred list.

Client C – DBS Minded to Bar – avoided inclusion on DBS Barred List after successful representations

Client C was accused of assault and exhibiting sexually inappropriate behaviour towards their colleagues whilst working in regulated activity.

Once instructed we were able to determine that it was, in fact, the opposite – Client C was struggling with their gender identity and was seeking acceptance in the workplace from their colleagues. Client C’s colleagues were routinely making unpleasant comments surrounding gender issues and our client also sadly experienced physical abuse.

Upon further instruction, it transpired that the workplace had no training or safeguarding measures in place. This meant that the workplace itself facilitated discriminatory bullying in the workplace. Instead of trying to understand Client C and their struggles surrounding their gender identity, they were treated as a scapegoat and were blamed for various actions and behaviours of others.

Due to such allegations, Client C felt so ashamed and humiliated that they have since stalled their transitioning.

It was clear that Client C experienced sexual and sexual orientation discrimination. This was evidenced by the company when they offered Client C a financial incentive to leave without any fuss. They have since admitted that the workplace facilitated discrimination and lacked the understanding and acceptance of gender identity and expression.

We ultimately secured a positive result for Client C.

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.