![[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
JW’s role at the home
JW’s role at the home
JW’s evidence was that her role at the home was principally to support not Miss X, but another service user in the home, Mr Y, whom she had cared for for some time, prior to the incidents in question involving Miss X. JW’s evidence was that Mr Y required “1:1” care/support during the night, to prevent him wandering into other people’s rooms; and that JW’s role was to provide that care for Mr Y.
We accept this evidence, noting that it was corroborated by an email from the care home’s service manager to staff, of 19 November 2021 (an exhibit to JW’s witness statement).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal. The Respondent made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact it made and on which its decision of 12 December 2022 (reference DBS6
- DBS’s decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The grant of permission to appeal
- The evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- Background facts
- Review of JW’s evidence on disputed matters
- JW’s role at the home
- The requirements for Miss X’s personal care
- Miss X’s occasional “behaviour”
- The incidents where JW held the door to Miss X’s room closed
- Our analysis of mistake of fact and/or law in DBS’s decision
- Was important and relevant context omitted?
- Does this omission in DBS’s decision amount to a mistake of law or fact?
- The grounds enumerated in JW’s “perfected ground of appeal”
- Conclusions