Those dealing with care cases will be familiar with DBS background checks, but we rarely have to go behind the legal scenic background of the DBS and the LA’s and the courts powers.
It is rare in my experience to see a reported case where the DBS take action against a local authority (LA) for disclosure. In this case there is reference to many legal relevancies and this short article may not mention them all. Its purpose is to alert that there is a reported case that deals with the topic of the LA’s ability to disclose information without being in contempt of court.
Facts: On 24th July 2025 the DBS brought an application against a LA to disclose to them findings made by the Family Court following public law proceedings which took place in 2021 concerning a family. The relevant person is called ‘X’.
The DBS received information in 2024 that X had been convicted of an offence and may be wanting to engage in regulated activity and that X had been convicted of an offence of "causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm" under section 5(1) and section 5(8) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, after they had applied to work in a role in early years which amounted to "regulated activity".
As a result of this information, the DBS issued an "intention to bar letter", enabling X to make representations about whether they should be barred.
There had been a fact finding and welfare hearing re the children in 2021.
The DBS also sought to dispense with service of the proceedings on the parties to those family law proceedings.
The court was provided with a list of documents sought by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Group (see act of same name 2006):
- Orders made following any hearings
- Parents statements
- CG’s report
- Expert evidence re physical injuries of the children
- Any psychiatric reports
The court detailed the role and jurisdiction of the DBS, referring to para 2 Sch 3 of the SVGA 2006 and Prescribed Criteria and Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 2009/37.
The court referred to s40 of SVGA - duty on LA’s to provide information and asked what is ‘prescribed information (s40 &s60 SVGA, and SVGA 2006 (Prescribed Information) Regulations 2008/3265.
The judge looked at S12 AJA 1960, S97 CA 1989 & FPR 12.73; FPR 12.73 says that :
1) For the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, information relating to proceedings to be held in private (whether or not contained in a document filed with the court) may be communicated -
(a) where the communication is to
(viii) a professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children
Rule 2.3 provides an explanation of who is a "professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children". It says as follows:
"professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children" includes -
(a) An officer of a local authority exercising child protection functions ;
(b) A police officer who is -
(i) Exercising powers under section 46 of the Act of 1989 or
(ii) Serving in a child protection unit or a paedophile unit of a police force
(c) any professional person attending a child protection conference or review in relation to a child who is the subject of the proceedings to which the information regarding the proceedings held in private relates:
(d) An officer of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children :
(e) a member or employee of the Disclosure and Barring service, being the body established under section 87(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.
The court held that the two provisions above make it clear that the DBS is a professional body acting in furtherance of the protection of children and the LA is entitled to disclose information about the proceedings held in private to the DBS; s12(4) AJA, provides it is not a contempt where the rules of court authorise such disclosure. The judge had no doubt a disclosure order should be made, plus redaction of certain names and dates of birth, and stated that the DBS had applied the correct approach in not notifying the parties to the family proceedings.
