[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

In oral evidence at her appeal, the Appellant denied the allegation once again. The Appellant said that she called FOA on the evening of 30 October 2020. She agreed that she had been at the workplace early in the morning of 31 October 2020 and confirmed that FOA had been with her throughout the visit. She said, in evidence, that she was there to get her medication and her certificate. Her medication was in her bag which was in a cupboard in AO’s flat. The cupboard, which AO does not use, was at the back of her flat, so AA had considered it safe to leave her bag (and medication) there. She explained that there was nowhere to leave things in the sleep-in room, as it just contained a bed and the cupboard for the cashbooks. AA stated that if items are left in the sleep-in room, one of the service users (GA) comes in, takes things and throws them away. For this reason, the cupboard remains locked, and staff leave nothing in the sleep-in room, which is also usually locked.

AA stated that her certificate was in the locked cupboard, in the sleep-in room, where the cashbooks were kept. FOA opened the cupboard for her with the key and then locked it back up again when she found her certificate. FOA had the key to the cupboard as he had been working on the cashbooks the previous day. AA stated that before she left the building, FOA called her on the phone and told her that he couldn’t find the cashbooks. She said that they searched for the cashbooks together. After looking upstairs, FOA suggested looking downstairs. As they knew GA throws a lot of things away, they thought he may have done it. His room is on the same floor as the sleep-in room. As he had previously thrown things behind the outside fence, AA said that FOA suggested looking outside.

FOA found the cashbooks in the black bin outside. They were wet and stained with food. The Appellant stated that FOA accused her of taking and destroying the cashbooks, but AA told him that she had nothing to do with it, and reminded him that he was with her at all times during the visit. AA stated that five, A4 size cashbooks were taken from the cupboard, and it would be impossible for FOA not to have seen her taking them. FOA then called AW and told the Appellant to leave. She then said that FOA had not accused her of taking the cashbooks.

In cross examination, the Appellant said that she looked in AO’s room for the certificate. She claimed that FOA, who was with her at all times, was lying when he said that she had left the building before she returned to look for the cashbooks. AA reiterated that she had not left the entrance door of the workplace before FOA had called her back so she would not have been able to take the books to the bin outside. She reiterated that FOA thought that GA might have taken the books and not her. AA stated that no service users were awake or up when she was at the workplace that morning. She later said that another service user, “I”, was at the door of the sleep-in room when she was in there. The Appellant agreed that she had no issues with any other members of staff and therefore there was no reason for anyone to get her into trouble. She denied asking FOA not to tell anyone that she had been at the workplace that morning.