Review of JW’s evidence on disputed matters
Review of JW’s evidence on disputed matters
In this section we summarise JW’s evidence on more controversial matters and explain why, on the whole, we accept her evidence. As a backdrop to what follows, we generally found JW to be credible; it seemed to us that she was doing her best at the hearing to tell the truth; there was corroboration in the more-contemporaneous documentation for a good deal of what she said. On some matters, JW’s evidence was also corroborated by that of Ms Fletcher (to whose evidence we also accorded weight, as she too presented herself to the hearing for cross examination, and seemed to us generally credible). All this does not, of course, mean that we take as “proven”, everything that JW (or indeed Ms Fletcher) had to say: JW obviously had a personal interest in interpreting the events of, and leading up to, 14 June 2022 a certain way; and the events in question had occurred two years before the hearing, allowing memory to fade; we therefore reviewed her evidence critically, and noted with care the extent to which it was corroborated.
- 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
![[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)