Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 277 (AAC)

Fecha: 25-Jun-2024

HA’s evidence and arguments – summary

HA’s evidence and arguments – summary

14.

HA’s ‘witness statement’ document stated that DBS’s core factual findings were wrong:

regarding core factual finding a., HA contended that AR’s “statement” was “a complete fabrication”, and that it contained inconsistencies and contradictions that undermined its credibility;

(i)

HA emphasised that AR’s “initial response” when questioned about any inappropriate behaviour was “a denial”

(ii)

HA stated that AR’s mental state and capacity at the time of the alleged incidents was “highly questionable”; HA stated that many of the residents at the centre had cognitive and mental impairments, and these could impact their perception, memory and ability to distinguish reality from fantasy

(iii)

HA submitted that there was no evidence to corroborate that of AR; HA was critical of DBS’s evaluation of the evidence;

regarding core factual finding b., HA contended that the conversation with AR was harmless and well-intentioned; it was a genuine attempt to connect with AR and provide him with a sense of comfort and understanding;

regarding core factual finding c., HA submitted that this finding ignored the nuances of working with individuals with complex neurological conditions; the incidents cited, such as AR running his hand along HA’s back or thigh, were not malicious or threatening acts but rather manifestations of AR’s condition and cognitive impairments; HA’s approach was to redirect AR’s behaviour and remind of appropriate boundaries; to label AR’s behaviour as “inappropriate”, and expect immediate reporting, was overly simplistic and insensitive.

15.

HA also asserted that he had been unfairly targeted and subjected to bullying within the workplace; those who made accusations against him had probably done so out of malice or a desire to retaliate against HA. In support of these assertions, HA alluded to his having “reported”, in April 2022, wrongdoing that led to a patient’s death; and to his having given evidence, in March 2023, against his ex-employer in a coroner’s court (HA said that the centre was found guilty of gross negligence in those proceedings).

16.

HA made representations about the effect of his being included in the adults’ barred list: it made it exceedingly difficult to secure employment; and there were the emotional and psychological effects of being found to have done the things set out in DBS’s core factual findings.

17.

In his oral evidence, HA made the following points:

AR was a large fellow; he had various tubes in his body; three people were required to turn him; hence, according to HA, the allegations of sexual activity were far-fetched;

AR’s room was open to the nursing station; this again, according to HA, made the allegations of sexual activity far-fetched.

18.

In cross examination, HA gave his view that AR had never given an account of sexual intimacy between them; HA asserted that the account attributed to AR, had been fabricated; HA’s view was that AR did not have the capacity to say the things that were attributed to him. HA said that the reason he had been able to have the conversation with HA about the “friend” of his youth, was that HA, through care and sensitivity, was able to communicate with AR at this level.

19.

JRL spoke highly of HA’s abilities as a care worker, in his oral evidence. He had worked with AR and said that he had a disease which affected his speech. JRL left the centre in 2021.