The incidents where JW held the door to Miss X’s room closed
The incidents where JW held the door to Miss X’s room closed
JW’s evidence was that, on a small number of occasions including on 14 June 2022, Miss X had woken up in the night or in the early morning (whilst JW was still on shift), and indicated she wanted something; JW went in to see what Miss X wanted; it became clear that Miss X wanted her pad changed; JW indicated that she was unable to do this and Miss X would have to go back to bed and wait until the day shift for her pad to be changed; this upset Miss X and she began to lunge at JW, potentially hitting her; to distance herself from Miss X, JW left the room and held the door shut; she continued to tell Miss X to go back to bed; JW stood holding Miss X’s door closed this way for a few minutes.
We find it relatively straightforward to accept JW’s evidence, up to this point in the narrative. It is similar to what JW was recorded as saying in the 22 June 2022 disciplinary meeting minutes; it is different, in a few details, from accounts given, by JW and NJ, immediately after the 14 June 2022 incident; but we do not see these differences in detail as significant (or as materially damaging to JW’s credibility) and, moreover, we think the period of one week (14 to 22 June) in which JW was able to reflect, gather her thoughts, and present a cogent account, does not diminish the reliability of the account.
More difficult was what to make of the evidence of what Miss X’s response was, to JW holding her door closed for a matter of minutes. JW’s evidence was that, by holding the door closed, she was trying to, and did, de-escalate the situation; that she (JW) knew that Miss X was not harming herself (behind the closed door); that Miss X did go back to bed, because she knew JW was not “engaging”. In essence, JW’s evidence was her holding Miss X’s door closed “worked”, in that it calmed Miss X down.
We do not wholly accept JW’s evidence in this regard; we regard as credible the evidence that, in the 14 June 2022 incident, the door-holding ended with NJ, another care worker, stepping in and managing to calm Miss X (in other words, the door-holding did not “work” to calm Miss X). On the other hand, we do accept that JW’s intention was to de-escalate the situation; and that when she stood holding the door closed, she kept a listening ear out for any signs that Miss X was in danger or self-harming.
There was considerable questioning at the hearing on the written note of two of the questions in the “investigation meeting minutes” of 15 June 2022 (signed by JW as well as the care home’s service manager) (page 47 of the bundle), as follows:
“Q10:
service manager: Miss X has said you have held door multiple times?
JW – did do once as JW wasn’t allowed to change pad and Miss X kicked off so held door
Q11:
service manager - how often have you held the door?
JW – have held door before
Service manager – have you filled form out
JW – no
JW – third one – Miss X bang bang on door JW tried to put in her room Miss X tried to pull tube and JW held door”
DBS’s case was that the final entry above was an “admission” by JW that, in one of the door-holding incidents prior to 14 June 2022, Miss X had tried to pull out her PEG as a result of her distress at having her door held shut. JW denied making such an admission: her evidence, as noted at paragraph 25 above, was that holding the door closed “worked” to de-escalate the situation.
Our view is that little of any significance can be gleaned from the final entry in the note of “Q11” above, for a number of reasons:
it is unclear what is meant by “third one” – if it means the incident on 14 June, it is odd that no other account (such as NJ’s) mentions Miss X trying to pull out her PEG
the wording is somewhat garbled; and in it, the pulling out of the PEG is mentioned before JW holding the door closed – it is therefore unclear whether (as DBS interpret it), the door-holding caused the attempt to pull out the PEG or (per JW’s account) that the door-holding was a response to Miss X having become upset (at JW refusing to change to her pad) (and the door-holding had the effect of calming her down)
most significantly, in our view, is that Miss X attempting to pull out her PEG does not appear in the “internal investigation summary report” (16 June) or “disciplinary meeting minutes” (22 June) that were the precursors to JW’s employment being terminated (24 June); it seems to us that, if the final entry on “Q11” was understood at the time to have the meaning DBS now ascribe to it, the point would have featured in those reports, and probably expressly as a reason for JW’s employment being terminated.
- 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)