AC-2024-MAN-000469 - [2025] EWHC 2049 (Admin)

The Tribunal recorded the legal advice it had received that it could take into account the Appellant’s good character both in considering whether it is more likely than not that he was telling the truth and whether he was likely to have behaved in the manner alleged; and noted that it had considered the testimonials about the Appellant: see [38] above.

However, there is no evidence that the Tribunal did consider these issues, or what weight they were afforded, when it assessed the evidence on paragraph 1a. There is no explanation in the determination as to what if any weight the Tribunal placed on this and why nonetheless it rejected his evidence.

This evidence of the Appellant’s good character was particularly relevant given the circumstances of the case, in which the Appellant accepted that in his haste to ensure that Patient A remained safe with the mask placed securely over his mouth his hands may have made contact with the patient’s body. Accordingly, the key issue for the Tribunal was not whether the Appellant’ hands made contact with the patient (a slap) but rather whether his actions were no more than what was clinically necessary or an assault. His good character was directly relevant to that issue.

Again, these errors compounded those identified in Grounds 1-3.