Panel’s questioning of the Appellant
Panel’s questioning of the Appellant
Upper Tribunal Member Jacoby asked the Appellant, ‘who were you twenty years ago?’. He said he was young, naïve, silly and growing up in an environment where violence was commonplace. The Appellant said he spent 16 years being physically abused by his mother and her partner and, when he left home, took out his anger on other people. That was his mentality a long time ago, but he had reconciled with his mother and, ‘I know that’s why I’ve changed’.
Member Jacoby asked the Appellant how he had learned to be different. He said it was having children and being aware that he was an influence on them. The Appellant said he had learnt how to deal with his emotions, which was important so that his children did not become like the person he used to be.
The Appellant became tearful when Member Jacoby asked him about the serious assault of his ex-partner in 2004, but he declined the offer of a short adjournment break. Member Jacoby asked him to explain why he said he ‘hurt a lot then and now’. The Appellant replied that he did not like who he was then, and his environment ‘pushed me into a world of violence’. The Appellant hated what he had done and added, ‘it’s just disgusting’.
Member Jacoby asked the Appellant to provide details of the therapy he mentioned in evidence. He named the therapist that he started seeing in August 2022 after breaking up with a partner. They discussed how he coped with his emotions and feeling that he did not ‘want to be here’. The Appellant said that the therapy sessions ended in January 2024. Initially, he had weekly sessions but, from October 2023, saw the therapist fortnightly. Member Jacoby asked the Appellant what type of therapist he saw. He was unsure but he described what they used to talk about. The Appellant said he found the therapist himself, from a Google search.
- Heading
- Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
- Judicial summary
- Factual background
- 24 October 2003 – police caution for committing the offence of common assault
- DBS’ decision making
- DBS’ decision
- in relation to the Appellant’s 2004 conviction for causing grievous bodily harm
- in relation to the Appellant’s 2003 caution for common assault
- What the Appellant did next
- Legal framework
- Grounds of appeal
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Arguments
- Appellant’s cross-examination at the hearing
- DBS
- Panel’s questioning of the Appellant
- Analysis
- Ground 1
- Disposal
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 329 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)