[2025] UKUT 030 (AAC)

On 16 August 2020 DKS’s representative, Blackfords LLP, made written representations to the DBS. Those representations pointed out that DKS’s request for a 4-5 week extension of time to provide his representations had been denied (with only a 1 week extension being granted) and stated that DKS was seeking further information and evidence to support his case against being barred. The representations criticised the evidence on which the DBS was relying and argued that it would be inappropriate and/or disproportionate for the DBS to make a final barring decision before the disclosure of evidence in the criminal proceedings and before the evidence had been tested at the Crown Court trial.

The representations included an account of the events of 27 June 2020, saying that DKS and SH attended DJ’s room just before 10pm when DJ could be heard shouting in his room. They found that DJ had soiled himself and required a change of clothes and bedclothes, which DKS and SH did “without incident” (see page 194 of the appeal bundle).

The representations deny that DKS covered DJ’s face with bedding, or any form of sheet or blanket, or that he ill-treated or shouted at DJ or any other resident. They state that if SH had been cleaning DJ’s bottom from behind as she claimed, she wouldn’t have been able to see anything in front of DJ’s face, and they say that due to DJ’s room being so small, there would have been insufficient space for DKS to have any physical contact with DJ while DJ was being attended to by SH (see page 195 of the appeal bundle). They suggest that if DKS had done what was alleged SH would surely have called for help, said something at the time, or at least reported the incident earlier than she did.

They explain that allegations of DKS shouting or speaking abruptly to residents may have arisen as a result of DKS’s attempts to make himself understood when speaking with a mask on (due to then-prevailing Covid rules).

The representations deny that DKS ever told any resident that they use their buzzers too much and pointed out that all three residents who had alleged that he had lacked capacity and had dementia (see page 194 of the appeal bundle).

The representations suggest that there was evidence of a vendetta against DKS, who had been hired to raise standards following a critical Care Quality Commission report and was not liked by those junior to him (see page 196 of the appeal bundle).