![[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Allegation 2: “threatened to knock AG out, pointing a finger in his face”
Allegation 2: “threatened to knock AG out, pointing a finger in his face”
We find that RW felt frustrated by AG’s persistent requests of her, which got on her nerves, and by his blocking the doorway when she wanted to put away laundry. However, there was no credible evidence to support the allegation that RW threatened to knock AG out, pointing a finger in his face and the DBS was mistaken in its finding that she did. The DBS was mistaken in its finding that RW did so.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision of 5 April 2024 was based on material mistakes of fact
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- The ‘relevant conduct’ gateway
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 2006 Act
- The relevant authorities
- The Barring Decision
- The Evidence
- SB’s evidence
- AG’s evidence
- RW’s evidence
- RW’s disciplinary interview
- DBS’s evaluation of the evidence
- Summary of DBS’s case before the Upper Tribunal
- Summary of RW’s case before the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence
- Corroboration provided by AG’s evidence
- Impact of inconsistencies on RW’s credibility, and RW’s live evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- RW’s failure to report her concerns about SB
- No reason to doubt SB’s evidence
- The Upper Tribunal’s assessment of DBS’s findings of fact, and the Upper Tribunal’s own findings of fact
- Allegation 1: “Shouted at resident AG”
- Allegation 2: “threatened to knock AG out, pointing a finger in his face”
- Allegation 3: “told AG to shut up, to go to his room and to stay there”
- Allegation 4: “pushed AG with both hands in his back down the hallway, causing him to stumble”
- Conclusions