![[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Appellant’s witness statement
Appellant’s witness statement
Before the hearing of this appeal, the Appellant supplied a written statement (verified by a statement of truth, as required by case management directions). In this statement, the Appellant repeated many of the factual assertions previously made and, in addition, stated:
on 28 January 2019, he emailed management at Home 1 to request a better radiator for the office room (an email of that date was attached). It was in response to the Appellant’s heating concerns that he was permitted to use the lounge at night when it was cold;
when interviewed about the incident at Home 1, he asked for confirmation to be sought from the young person whom TE said also saw him asleep, but nothing was ever provided;
he is aware of another case in which a worker at Home 1 was allegedly found asleep by another staff member. In that case, the allegation was not upheld because no effort had been made to wake the worker even though it was identical to the Appellant’s case (the statement attached the disciplinary findings in that case as well as a written authority to use them in this case);
- Heading
- Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
- Judicial summary
- Factual background
- Allegations 2 and 3 – failing to support young people in line with care plans and failure to follow safeguarding procedures (night of 6/7 November 2020), and prior failure to report a safeguarding con
- under the heading “ SS [social worker from placing local authority] questioned the processes in place to ensure bank staff members were fully informed of young people’s individual needs and care plans
- DBS’ decision making
- Representations against barring
- there were inaccuracies in the record of the ‘informal conversation’ with the manager of Home 2
- at Home 1, the Appellant was allowed to use the lounge at night because the office was very cold
- the LADO’s recommendations for increased safety measures at Home 2 supported the Appellant’s version of events
- DBS’ decision
- Incident at Home 1 (Finding 1)
- Incidents at Home 2 (Findings 2 and 3)
- “on an un-specified date, you failed to follow reporting procedures after noticing a
- “you have engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm children and vulnerable adults”
- “In consideration of your Article 8 rights the following has been considered
- Legal framework
- Grounds of appeal and the parties’ arguments
- DBS’ barring decision making process document (BDMP) contained “no evidential analysis”
- there is no limit to the form that a mistake of fact may take including an incomplete finding or omission or an inferential finding such as a person’s state of mind (intentions, motives, beliefs): see
- Appellant’s witness statement
- at Home 2, no one ever told him that young people in his care displayed sexualised behaviour
- Appellant’s oral evidence: examination-in-chief
- Appellant’s oral evidence: re-examination
- Closing submissions
- DBS
- any mistake of fact must be material to the barring decision
- Closing submissions
- Analysis
- Findings 2 and 3
- Finding 2
- failing to make records of activities during the night shift (BDMP document)
- Finding 3
- Conclusions