[2025] UKUT 008 (AAC)

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal, as set out in the original application for permission to appeal and in Mr Atanda’s skeleton argument, allege that the DBS’s decision involves both errors of law and mistakes of fact. The grounds may be conveniently summarised as follows.

So far as error of law is alleged, Mr Atanda submitted that OS had been denied a fair hearing contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR. He argued that the DBS’s approach was unfair in two respects in particular. The first was that the DBS had failed to call for or receive direct evidence from Kim, being solely reliant on her hearsay evidence. The second was that the DBS had changed the nature of allegation 1 without giving OS the opportunity of making representations on the point. Thus, the minded to bar letter alleged that OS had lifted Edward from the floor whereas the final decision found that OS had assisted in lifting Edward.

So far as mistake of fact is alleged, Mr Atanda’s main argument was that OS was shadowing Kim and acting under her supervision, and as the senior member of the care team it was her responsibility, and not OS’s, to take the various steps which he was being criticised for not taking.