[2024] UKUT 247 (AAC)

It appears that DL was working in the care home at the time that JG apparently made that previous allegation. She could therefore be expected to have some detailed information about the allegation, the steps taken to investigate it, and the final findings.

DL raised the issue of this previous allegation by JG with the home soon after she had been accused of wrongdoing. In DL’s own account there is reference to the manager and police investigating. Either DL was honestly sharing information about something which had really happened, or she was lying to suggest that JG was unreliable. It would have been a bold lie because DL would have known, if it was a lie, that the police and manager would simply say they had never investigated any such thing.

there is no other evidence on the face of the papers relating to that previous alleged allegation by JG, despite an order by Judge Poynter that such information should be provided by the home. In particular we note an absence of any information from the police about it, an absence of any records from the home about it, and absence of any information from the previous home manager about it. We do not draw an inference that there were no such documents because it appears that the home has not been entirely compliant with directions.

JG’s care records do not refer to that previous allegation. However, we would not expect them to. JG's care records are about her needs rather than any wrongdoings against her. We know that JG’s care records do not contain any information about the allegation against DL which is the subject of this case either. It follows that the absence of information in the care records is an entirely neutral fact which cannot help us with whether DL's account about the previous allegation is correct or not.

There is no information to contradict the account given by DL about that previous allegation by JG.