[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

The Appellant provided written representations in response to DBS’ ‘minded to bar letter’, which argued:

barring would prevent him from continuing to pursue a Masters in mental health nursing and end his dream of becoming a mental health nurse;

as an “awake support worker”, he was required to carry out hourly observations once the young people were asleep as well as a range of additional duties including washing and ironing clothes, and cleaning the kitchen, lounge, all toilets and all bathrooms. Cleaning tasks alone took up at least 8 hours of the Appellant’s night shift;

he was informed that, at Home 2, no light was to be left on in the corridor alongside the young people’s bedrooms, and “office door also needs to be closed for the same purpose”;

on the night in question at Home 2, at about 2:15 a.m. he noticed that a young person was using the toilet, which was this young person’s normal routine, and the appellant deliberately did not engage with him;

on that same night, there was no pen available so he could not document nightly activities. At the end of his shift, the incoming staff member also had no pen, saying she would get one from the manager’s office when it was opened at 8 a.m., so the Appellant did a verbal handover instead;

at the end of the ‘informal conversation’ with the manager of Home 2 (see paragraph 12 above), he was asked to sign a note of the conversation, which he did, but the manager refused to provide him with a copy. The manager then pretended to call a HR manager for permission to provide a copy, but the non-existent HR manager did not, of course, answer the call;

the Appellant was not told during the informal conversation what concerns had been raised. He learnt about these for the first time during the subsequent interview with Home 2’s manager;

the Appellant’s previous experience of problems with the two young people was a short time before 7 November 2020 when, at about 7 am, one tried to get into the bedroom of the other. The Appellant and a staff member (KIA) helped to prevent this , so KIA was “clearly aware” of the incident;

towards the end of the interview with Home 2’s manager, the Appellant politely suggested a number of actions that could be taken to minimise night time risks at the home, which included having two waking night staff and lighting the corridor to “allow visibility of movement”. The manager became angry at this. The Appellant accepted that he had not read the company safeguarding policy but added that he had not been given a copy. The manager said it was his responsibility to ask for a copy. The Appellant said he could not have obtained a copy from the manager’s office because it was locked at night. He also told the manager that she ought to share with staff her knowledge of these children’s “sexual disinhibited behaviours”;

the employer’s response could well have been influenced by Home 2’s manager’s anger that the Appellant had identified safeguarding weaknesses at the home;