Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 270 (AAC)

Fecha: 14-Jun-2024

Documentary evidence before the Upper Tribunal

Documentary evidence before the Upper Tribunal

In addition to the decision letter, evidence in the bundle of 335 pages included:

the DBS referral form from the school where the incident occurred; this, amongst other things, described JI’s role as “kindergarten practitioner (room leader)”

the 30 October 2020 suspension letter from the school

the 26 November 2020 “outcome of disciplinary hearing” letter from the school; this said, amongst other things, that JI had resigned on 12 November 2020; that JI did not attend the disciplinary hearing on 19 November 2020; and that, had JI not resigned, she would have been dismissed for gross misconduct

notes from the disciplinary meeting on 13 November 2020

“kindergarten room leader” job description

JI’s application form, references and contract

incident reports from HI, the deputy kindergarten manager, and from PM (the assistant to JI in the kindergarten), both dated 12 October 2020

“management advice” meeting notes of 13 October 2020

notes from meeting with PM on 21 October 2020

notes from meetings with JI on 26 and 28 October 2020

notes from telephone call with HI on 28 October 2020

notes from telephone call with LY on 27 October 2020

5-page letter from JI to DBS, dated 20 September 2021, with appendices; in summary (and most relevantly for the issues in dispute in this appeal), the letter said that

(i)

the school’s evidence to DBS was fabricated

(ii)

JI was being victimised for questioning procedures

(iii)

the reasons for JI’s actions on the day in question was to gain order within the room whilst other staff members were serving food

(iv)

JI put PK in the highchair to keep her safe

(v)

JI’s putting PK outside in the highchair was to encourage improvement in her behaviour

(vi)

it was not raining at the time

(vii)

JI deemed her actions that day as a safety measure

(viii)

other staff put children in highchairs at lunch time, encouraging good behaviour when eating lunch

(ix)

PM was 10 metres away in a room of medium noise level – JI questioned how PM could hear what JI said to PK

(x)

PM was a newly qualified, newly employed staff member, aged 19

(xi)

JI was suffering from anxiety and insomnia at the time; however, these personal issues had no effect on JI’s behaviour that day, due to JI’s professionalism

witness statements of JI dated 23 September 2022 and 29 January 2024, including 8 character references (there was a further witness statement from JI dated 22 June 2023, not in the bundle)

DBS’s “barring decision summary” document: this recorded “no concerns” for “callousness/lack of empathy” and “irresponsible and reckless”; and “definite concerns” for “poor problem solving/coping skills”.