[2024] UKUT 224 (AAC)

The Appellant applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal the Barring Decision. He maintained that he had been falsely accused, pointing out that no witness claimed to have seen him carry out the alleged unauthorised procedure, even though there was a colleague with him at the time he was alleged to have carried it out.

I ordered a remote oral hearing of the permission application, following which I granted permission to appeal on the basis that I was satisfied that the Appellant’s grounds were arguable. I ordered a remote oral hearing of the substantive appeal, which took place on 1 July 2024 on the CVP platform before a three-member panel with expert members. The hearing was assisted by Ms Neeta Jain, a Hindi interpreter.

The Appellant was unrepresented at the hearing, although supported by his wife. I don’t think he was hampered by having no legal representation because his case was a very simple one: he didn’t dispute that, had he done what was alleged, that would have been harmful to the patient, but he insisted that he did not do what was alleged.

Translating his argument into the language of the SVGA, his case was that the Barring Decision was based on a material mistake of fact. He gave oral evidence both about what happened on 12 December 2021 when he was said to have carried out the unauthorised procedure, and on the 15/16 December 2021 night shift, when he was said to have told his colleagues about what he had done on 12 December.

The DBS was represented by Mr Tinkler of counsel (instructed by DLA Piper LLP). Mr Tinkler cross-examined the Appellant and made submissions resisting the appeal. He maintained that the DBS was entitled to assess the evidence as it did and to make the findings that it did. Appropriateness was a matter for the DBS and the Upper Tribunal should not trespass on that, and the Barring Decision was proportionate given the seriousness of the conduct that the DBS had found proved. He maintained that the Barring Decision involved no mistake or fact or law and the appeal should be dismissed.