[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

The evidence against the Appellant in relation to this allegation was the written statement of FOA, which the DBS preferred, on balance, to that of the Appellant. The Appellant had consistently denied that she was responsible for taking the cashbooks, damaging them and throwing them in the bin outside the workplace. She consistently accepted that she had attended the workplace early in the morning of 31 October 2020, the day after her suspension, and that she had been inside the building, inside the sleep-in room and inside the locked cupboard within which the cashbooks were stored. The question therefore was whether she had removed the cashbooks from the cupboard when she was in there, damaged and/or disposed of them.

FOA did not categorically state that he had seen AA take the cashbooks, put them in her bag and remove them from the sleep-in room. Nor did he state that he saw AA damage them with food and/or water and dispose of them in the bin. The DBS relied on circumstantial evidence to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant had done this. As highlighted by the employer, in the disciplinary meeting (17 November 2020), the Appellant had a reason to destroy/damage the cashbooks as they were evidence against her in connection with the investigation into the financial abuse allegations. They had been damaged the day after the Appellant’s suspension pending the outcome of this investigation.

Amongst other circumstances, FOA stated that AA had put gloves on when she arrived at the workplace and while she was looking for her things. This action, if accepted, suggested that AA did not want her fingerprints to be found on anything she touched in the workplace so as to negate any suggestion she had been there or had touched the cashbooks. AA denied putting gloves on when looking for her bag and certificate but accepted putting them on before searching for the cashbooks with FOA. She stated that she did so as she was not sure where she would have to look and what her hands would be touching while she did so. The panel found it peculiar for AA to put gloves on at all. Even taking AA’s admission, it was illogical for her to think that she would not be touching dirty things when she was looking for her bag and certificate, but she might be touching dirty things when looking for the cashbooks. None of these items were any more or less likely to be outside. It suggested that she knew she would be looking in the bins, which in turn suggested she knew they were there, and she put the gloves on to avoid her fingerprints being found on the cashbooks. Regardless of when she put the gloves on, the use of gloves at all suggested to the panel, that the Appellant did not want to be discovered as having been at the workplace that morning.

On the account of FOA, when AA arrived at the workplace, she went to AO’s room to obtain her bag, then went to the sleep-in room, with her bag, putting gloves on before she entered. She thereafter went to the cupboard where the cashbooks were stored, before leaving. By this account, AA had her bag inside the sleep-in room, and it was therefore available to contain the cashbooks she was taking from there. AA’s emailed statement said that when she arrived at the workplace, she got her bag from AO’s flat and then went to the sleep-in room to look for her certificate, leaving her bag on the chair outside. By this account, the bag would not have been inside the sleep-in room and therefore not able to hold the cashbooks. The cashbooks would have been more difficult to conceal without a bag to store them in. During the disciplinary meeting on 17 November 2020, the Appellant stated that she got her bag and left it on the chair in the sleeping room. In her disciplinary hearing (December 2020), AA stated that on arrival she went to the sleep-in room to get her certificate before going to AO’s flat to get her bag, which she left on the chair outside the sleep-in room before going back inside it to chat to FOA. Throughout these accounts, AA changed the order of events and changed the position of the chair on which she placed her bag. While the order of how things happened at the workplace that morning was not discussed in oral evidence, this inconsistency in the details called the credibility of her account into question.

FOA also stated in his written statement that AA left the building with her bag before returning to the building a short time later, for a brief chat with him and then leaving. It was at this point that FOA called her to say that the cashbooks were missing, and she returned. On FOA’s account, AA had her bag, potentially containing the cashbooks, outside the building which implies that she was capable of having discretely taken them and thrown them in the bin. AA’s emailed statement said that she had not made it out of the building before FOA called her to say that the cashbooks were missing. By her account, she did not make it outside and therefore could not have destroyed the books and/or put them in the bin.

While the Appellant consistently stated thereafter that she had not left the building with her bag, there were other inconsistencies in her account. In her statement, she said that when FOA told her that the cashbooks were missing, she responded by asking if he wanted to check her bag. She also pointed out to him that she hadn’t left the building, she still had her bag with her and they had been in the sleep-in room together the whole time. These actions and comments, in the opinion of the panel, were defensive in nature and amounted to a strange reaction to the situation, particularly as FOA had not accused her of taking them – he had simply approached her in a panic, telling her that something important was missing. AA said in oral evidence that FOA had accused her of taking the cashbooks and later, in evidence, said that he had not done so. FOA stated that AA suggested that another service user, GA, who was known for throwing things away, might have done it. AA did not mention this in her statement, although she relied upon this in oral evidence. Overall, the inconsistencies in AA’s accounts, both throughout the process and within her oral evidence, caused the panel to consider that her account in relation to this allegation lacked credibility. This, in turn, caused the panel to prefer the evidence of FOA and could find nothing to suggest that the DBS were wrong to have done the same. We found that the DBS had not made an error of fact in relation to allegation 2.