[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

In oral evidence at her appeal hearing, the Appellant agreed again that she had been handed the suspension letter by AW on 30 October 2020. She read it and understood it to mean that she should not contact anyone involved in the investigation. She did not think FOA was part of the investigation. She attended the workplace to collect her personal items and only spoke to FOA about conversational matters. She mentioned nothing about the investigation or the suspension. She stated that she did not know who was involved in the investigation other than the names mentioned during the investigation meeting.

In cross examination, AA admitted calling FOA on the evening of 30 October 2020, at around 7.24pm, shortly after receiving the suspension letter a few hours earlier, at 4pm. She again accepted that she had attended the workplace on 31 October 2020. It was put to her that as she didn’t know who was involved in the investigation, she should not have spoken to anyone from her workplace. The Appellant stated that she had never been given a list of names of people involved in the investigation. It was put to her that attending the place of work was a breach of her suspension and the Appellant stated that she did not see this as a breach, and she still didn’t. It was suggested that she should have known not to go to her place of work while suspended. The Appellant stated that as she had never been suspended in 12 years of working there, she did not know this. She stated that has been given awards and money bonuses for managing the workplace for three months.

In closing, Ms Elliot for the DBS submitted, echoing the written submissions made by the DBS on 5 August 2022 [230] and on 27 August 2024, that the DBS was entitled to find that the Appellant had breached the terms of her suspension as she had contacted FOA without knowing whether he was involved in the investigation, by attending the workplace where AO lived and by entering AO’s living space. It was submitted that the Appellant knew she was wrong to attend the workplace as she had asked FOA not to tell anyone that she had been to the workplace on 31 October 2020. It was submitted that the DBS was entitled to find that a person of the Appellant’s experience (12 years in the care sector) should have known not to have returned to her workplace without express permission and should have known that doing so would amount to a breach. In response, in closing, the Appellant stated that she had never been suspended before and did not know that attending her place of work was a breach of suspension. She stated that she clearly misunderstood the terms of the suspension letter.