[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

Before giving oral evidence, the Appellant (at his request) swore an oath on the Bible to tell the truth.

The Appellant confirmed, in response to a question from his counsel, Ms Bayley, that the contents of his witness statement remained accurate. The statement was incorporated in the Appellant’s evidence-in-chief.

In response to Ms Bayley’s questions, the Appellant said he would never sleep on duty. On the night in question at Home 1, he was aware that one young person, who was aged 18 and enjoyed free movement, had gone out. The Appellant explained why he was allowed to use the lounge at night (the allocated office was cold). He also said the doorbell was faint, possibly faulty, which is why he was issued with a mobile phone.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant what he could remember about seeing TE on the night in question at Home 1. He said he was in the middle of a long prayer, TE came in, he looked up and then bowed his head back down to continue the prayer. The Appellant said he would have expected TE to ‘tap’ him if she really thought he was asleep.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant general questions about his work at Home 2. He said he was unhappy with the way in which the sleeping allegation had been dealt with at Home 1 and resigned as a permanent Priory Group staff member. A manager then asked him to reconsider his resignation and, when he did not, asked him to join bank staff. The Appellant agreed on the condition that he would not work in Home 1. The Appellant thought he had only done four shifts at Home 2, and the duties of waking night staff were the same as at Home 1. However, Home 2 was larger, with a middle floor (three floors in total). The Appellant said his first duty at night at Home 2 was to go downstairs to clean common areas, including toilets, and wash and iron clothes. When ground floor tasks were completed, the Appellant would clean the middle floor.

The Appellant was asked by Ms Bayley whether it was normal for him not to be provided with the care plans for residents of the homes at which he worked as bank staff. He replied, ‘it’s not normal practice’. Ms Bayley asked the Appellant what he could recall about the handover session at the start of his night shift on 6 November 2020. He said that he was informed that all residents were settled in bed and there were no concerns or risks identified. The Appellant emphasised that he always asked at handover if there was anything ‘to look into’. At the handover session, day staff told him that, if the children wanted anything, they would ask. The Appellant was also told to ensure that the lights were off on the middle floor. The Appellant asked why and was informed that the children would not settle if they saw lights, and Home 2 had a ‘no lights’ policy.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant how the interview with Home 2’s manager came about. He said he was on his way to college when the manager rang his telephone and asked him to come in, which he did. The manager did not explain why she had asked the Appellant to return to the home. Before the interview began, he was unaware of the allegation against him. In fact, he did not think what happened on 18 November 2020 was an interview because the manager told the Appellant that she was being investigated and, later in the interview, said that he could help her (the manager) to save her job. During the interview, the manager asked the Appellant why he had closed the door, and he said it was because of the ‘no lights’ policy.

The Appellant was asked to comment on the part of the interview record which stated that, on 5 October 2020, Home 2’s manager told him that he needed to be in the middle floor office with the door open “to safeguard the children as they display sexualised behaviour”. The Appellant categorically denied having been told this and said his interaction with the manager was only a brief greeting. Ms Bayley asked the Appellant if anyone in Home 2 had ever mentioned sexualised behaviour and he said that this had never happened.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant why, after being told in interview that two young people had been found naked in the same bedroom, he had asked Home 2’s manager what safeguarding measures had been put in place to keep the young people safe. He said he was concerned because, in his care experience, young people could be unpredictable. It was possible for young people at Home 2 to access the garden without being seen. The Appellant said he told the manager that, if children have this behaviour, someone needed to ensure that staff did not spend most of their time cleaning etc. The manager made it very clear that she was not interested in anything the Appellant had to say about safeguarding arrangements at Home 2.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant to comment on that part of the interview note in which the manager reportedly informed him that it was his responsibility to “have read and signed all the YP paperwork” and asked why he had not. The Appellant said he told the manager that he had only ever seen her in the car park. He would have asked to see care plans but the room in which they were kept was always locked during the night shift; he relied heavily on day staff to let him know about any risks. Ms Bayley asked whose responsibility it was to ensure that bank staff understood what was required. He said it was the responsibility of staff at the home to tell bank staff about risks and then ‘you sign’, but at Home 2 no one there had time to give him any papers; things were different at Home 1. The Appellant rejected the allegation that he had failed to support young people in line with their care plans, saying he supported them in line with the information he had.

In answer to Ms Bayley’s questions, the Appellant said that, at Home 2, he was not expected to make an hourly record of things done. Staff at the home told him that. He was only expected to provide a summary of activities during the night shift. However, the Appellant’s normal practice was to check hourly that the children were asleep.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant to comment on the reported lack of a pen for recording events during the night shift. He said that, as bank staff, there was a limit to what he could access and he would not normally bring his own pen, only a laptop. On the night in question, the Appellant could not find a pen and his plan was to update records when day staff arrived. When asked to reflect on his actions by Ms Bayley, the Appellant accepted that the documentation should have been completed.

The Appellant was asked to comment on the allegation that he failed to report an earlier incident at Home 2 involving the young people concerned. He said that, after being told in the interview with Home 2’s manager about the two young people being found in the same bedroom, he asked if that was why he had previously seen one of them trying to ‘cross’ to the other’s bedroom. In that earlier incident, he tried to stop a young person who struggled with him but carried on trying to get into the other young person’s bedroom. Another (permanent) member of staff came to assist and, by this time, both young people were out of their bedrooms and needed to be separated. The Appellant asked the other member of staff why these young people behaved like that and was told that they were always trying to get into each other’s bedrooms. Since the incident had been witnessed by the other member of staff, to whom the Appellant was to hand over, he saw no need to record the incident. Having reflected, however, the Appellant now accepted that he should have documented the incident.

Ms Bayley asked the Appellant about his career history and plans. He had worked in the care sector for seven years, it was his ‘passion’, and being barred had prevented him from completing a nursing qualification. The Appellant was now working as a delivery driver and his household faced significant financial pressures.