[2024] UKUT 406 (AAC)

Mr Dunlop submits that, in the First-tier Tribunal proceedings, the Appellant decided not to give evidence for reasons related to her ill-health and the intention was that a Ms McDougall would instead give live evidence about D and S. This was explained in the Appellant’s skeleton argument for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (at paragraph 6). Ms McDougall had been assisting the Appellant’s family since 2015, had known both children for more than half their lives and was also involved in their education. Ms Mc Dougall’s witness statements spoke about D’s limited social skills, difficulty talking to anyone apart from her brother and to her cat, at times only communicating using a message app on her iPad, difficulty with eye contact, reliance on her brother for basic self-care tasks, concerns expressed by D’s School tutor about her ‘social presentation’ and social isolation, problems understanding other children’s motives and when she was being bullied, that her School hockey coach, Miss Naismith (whom the School decided not to put forward as a witness), would never leave D alone due to her vulnerability. In relation to S, Ms McDougall’s witness statements spoke about his deteriorating mental health especially during ‘lockdown’, concerns expressed by School staff about his ability to maintain concentration and his mental health, and regular bouts of crying.

The Appellant submits that Ms McDougall’s statements about D’s functioning were consistent with Dr Vassiliadou’s clinical observations (made at a face-to-face clinical assessment).

The School chose not to provide witness evidence from any of the children’s teachers. The Appellant submits that the School’s three witnesses – Headteacher, Safeguarding Governor and Deputy Headteacher (Academic) – had virtually no personal knowledge of the children, as their witness statements demonstrated.

The Appellant submits that, before the hearing on 19 April 2023, the Tribunal gave no indication that it might reject the Appellant’s diagnostic evidence. And its statement of reasons made no reference to any of Ms Mc Dougall’s evidence (save for an exhibit to her fourth statement namely a School nurses’ opinion that D was ‘high-functioning possibly autistic’) nor to any of the arguments in the Appellant’s skeleton argument.