[2024] UKUT 258 (AAC)

In giving permission to appeal, Judge Citron gave the following by way of “reasons”:

“The grounds of appeal include factual assertions by the Applicant, to the effect that the findings of fact on which DBS’s decision was based (essentially, the second, third and fourth allegations, as the first allegation was acknowledged by DBS (for example, at page 303 of the bundle, under “Post Reps”) to be less significant) failed to take into account relevant and important contextual facts such as:

•

as regards the second allegation, the fact or belief held by the Applicant, that JB was not to be woken, even though his pad was wet

•

as regards the third allegation, the fact that TH was difficult to deal with and refused personal care from the Applicant

•

as regards the fourth allegation, the fact (as alleged by the Applicant) that she did [not] make the 5.30 am entry on TH’s bowel monitoring chart on 17 March 2021.

It seems to me arguable that factual assertions of this kind could be proved by the Applicant on the balance of probabilities, and that, if they were so proved, that DBS made a mistake in the findings of fact on which the decision was based, and/or on a point of law, by omitting important and relevant context.

It also seems to me arguable that the decision to include AW in the barred lists was disproportionate.

Permission to appeal is not formally limited. However, the matters which have led me to give permission are as set out above, which I regard as arguable with a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success. In particular, I am not persuaded of the arguability of the mistakes on points of law alleged at paragraph 32 b i to v inclusive of the Applicant’s “submissions on barring decision process” document.