Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 126 (AAC)

Fecha: 18-Abr-2024

Disposal

(6)

Disposal

(a)

Remittal

123.

Mr Serr submitted that “if you find she never assaulted him, ie. never struck him at all, I accept remove 'cause the threat would not suffice. The key was the striking of the child”.

124.

We have indeed found that the appellant did not assault L. But we have not found that she did not make any physical contact with him at all. We have found that she did not intend to hit him but that her arms were indeed flailing, and that they or one of them connected with L, as she tried to fend him off. Mr Serr submitted that, if we were to make that finding, the appropriate course would be remittal, for the DBS to make a new decision based on that finding. We accept that submission and are remitting, with the following findings.

(b)

Findings of fact which the tribunal has made and on which DBS must base its new decision

125.

The DBS must base its new decision on the following findings of fact—

(1)

The appellant did not intend to hit L. But her arms were flailing, and one or both arms connected with his chest and shoulders, as she tried to fend him off and defend herself.

(2)

The appellant did say “if he hits me I’ll hit him back I’m not scared of him”.

(3)

But she said it for the reasons, and with the meaning, mentioned at paragraphs 118 to 120 above.

(4)

The appellant had not, by the time of the incident, had training in de-escalation, or moving someone away from a situation, or crisis handling or restraint (we make this finding because we accept her evidence on this).