[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

The Appellant was re-examined by Mr Serr, counsel for DBS.

Mr Serr asked the Appellant about his professional experience before these incidents. He said that he started working for the NHS in 2012, and Priory Group in 2017. At the time of the incidents, the Appellant agreed that he was experienced in working with vulnerable young people. He also confirmed the accuracy of the training records provided by Priory Group to DBS, which included training on safeguarding, vulnerable young people and sexually harmful behaviour.

Mr Serr asked the Appellant about nighttime working arrangements. At both Home 1 and Home 2, two staff were on duty at night. One of these, the Appellant, was the waking member of staff; the other slept unless required to assist. The Appellant agreed that, as the waking staff member, he was responsible for residents’ safeguarding and accepted that, if he was asleep, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Mr Serr questioned the Appellant about procedures at Home 1 if a young person returned to the home during a night shift. He said that young people were not given a front door key which meant the waking staff member was responsible for letting them in.

On the night in question at Home 1, the Appellant confirmed, in response to Mr Serr’s questions, that he knew that one young person was out and expected to return later. Mr Serr took the Appellant to the record of TE’s interview, which stated that, at about 2 a.m. she was woken by noise outside made by a female resident; she did not investigate because she thought the Appellant was aware but did not recall hearing him challenge the young person as to why she was outside. The Appellant said he recalled this incident. The young person was outside smoking a cigarette, but she was 18, had free access to the home and he had no right to challenge her.

Mr Serr took the Appellant to that part of TE’s interview where she stated that, at 4.23 a.m. she was woken by the doorbell ringing three times, went to the entrance and let a young person in, the young person asked why TE had answered the door, rather than waking night staff, and the two of them went to the lounge where they “found [the Appellant] asleep on the sofa”. Mr Serr asked the Appellant why TE heard the doorbell, but he did not. The Appellant said that this young person was often out at night and normally used a mobile phone to call waking night staff to be let in, but not on this occasion. He added that the office was closer to the front door than the lounge. Mr Serr suggested that it was odd that the sleeping staff member heard the doorbell ring three times, but the Appellant did not hear it even once to which he replied, ‘that is what she says’. Later, Mr Serr reminded the Appellant that, according to the record of his interview with Home 1’s manager, he said that he would hear the doorbell from the lounge. The Appellant replied that he ‘may not have heard the context of the question at the time’. Mr Serr asked the Appellant why he had said nothing about a faulty doorbell during his interview with Home 1’s manager. The Appellant replied that the manager did not dispute that the bell was faulty. Ms Smith, Member of the Upper Tribunal, asked the Appellant to clarify whether there was any door or wall acting as a barrier between the lounge and front door, to which he replied, ‘open plan I guess’.