[2025] UKUT 225 (AAC)

We held an oral hearing of the Appellant’s appeal on 27 February 2025. AA was represented by Ms Laura Bayley of counsel and the DBS by Mr Andrew Webster of counsel. We were grateful to them both for their participation and for their assistance with the hearing. Counsel told us they had problems with the appeal bundles, which took up time at the outset of the day, although we had a spare paper bundle for AA to use. We were grateful to counsel for their patience.

We heard evidence from AA for the whole day. There were some difficulties in hearing what was being said from the witness box, due to the size of the hearing room, the location of the witness box relative to the judges’ dais, and the fact that AA was softly spoken and tended to give his evidence quickly. While we were satisfied that we had heard the evidence being given, it meant the hearing lasted for longer than expected, due to double checking in the moment that we had captured what AA had said.

At times, it also appeared that AA would agree with a question being put to him, although we observed that he appeared to be agreeing the question had been asked, or that it was what his former employer had said to him during the investigation. His subsequent answers confirmed he did not agree with the underlying factual assertion being put. Exploring these issues with AA also took time.

The outcome was that while we heard evidence on 27 February 2025, there was insufficient time for the parties to make their submissions on the day. Upper Tribunal Judge Butler therefore issued directions on 03 March 2025, for the parties to have 21 days to provide written submissions. This timescale was given at the request of counsel for the parties. Having received the written submissions, the panel reconvened and made its decision.