![[2024] UKUT 427 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 5
Ground 5
The CQC report provides ample evidence of poor management practice at the home, which is potentially a significant mitigating factor in the appellant’s case. There is no evidence, for example, that management had provided guidance to the appellant about when doors may be locked or how that should be authorised.
We have in substance dealt with this ground as part of considering Ground 2. We need deal no further with it.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal
- The Upper Tribunal hearing
- DBS’s decision
- The grant of permission
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- Our approach to the evidence
- The facts
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Our analysis and conclusions
- Grounds 1-6 concerning DBS finding (i): locking residents in rooms
- Ground 1
- Grounds 2 and 3
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7: Finding (ii): verbal abuse of residents in her care
- Ground 8: lack of empathy
- Ground 9: hostility towards CQC inspectors
- Proportionality
- Conclusion on the appeal
- Suzanna Jacoby
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it was appropriate to make any orders under Rule 14 in this case going beyond the orders already made by the Registrar. We bear in mi
- Open justice means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 , [2020] AC 629 the Supreme Court explained the purpose
- Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that: “Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the inter
- Numerous cases have emphasised the link between open justice and the right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression and have provided guidance on the nature
- Conclusions