[2024] UKUT 427 (AAC)

DBS was satisfied that, whilst employed as a Care Assistant, the appellant had engaged in conduct that endangered or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult because it concluded: (i) that she had been complicit in locking a number of residents into their rooms without their consent on the nightshift of 13-14 October 2022; and (ii) had verbally abused residents in her care.

The most serious of the allegations against the appellant, found proved by DBS, was that the appellant was complicit in residents being locked into their bedrooms without consent. DBS was critical of the reasons that the appellant has advanced in her representations (and now in her grounds of appeal) for having done this, which included that the home was short-staffed, she had too much to do and rooms were locked in order to keep residents safe from each other as there were violent adults in the home who would otherwise walk into other residents’ rooms, and that some of the vulnerable adults asked for their rooms to be locked to stop this happening.

DBS adopts a structured judgment process (SJP) when taking its decisions. In this case, DBS identified concerns in relation to the appellant as regards emotional and behavioural factors, including “callousness/lack of empathy” and “irresponsible and reckless” behaviour. DBS considered that she had in her letter of representations demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the vulnerable adults in her care, that she had an irresponsible approach to her caring role with a tendency to blame others, including the vulnerable adults themselves, for her conduct. DBS considered that she demonstrated a lack of insight into the harm that her actions might have caused the vulnerable adults.

This led DBS to conclude that there was a significant risk of her repeating this behaviour. DBS specifically considered the appellant’s rights under Article 8, noting that a decision to bar would prevent her from seeking future employment working with vulnerable adults, a role that she has performed for a number of years, which could impact her earning potential and personal life and limit her volunteering opportunities. However, DBS decided that a decision to bar was a proportionate interference with her Article 8 rights in this case in view of the risk that it considered she poses to vulnerable adults.