RW’s failure to report her concerns about SB
RW’s failure to report her concerns about SB
In her evidence before the Upper Tribunal RW explained that she was not prone to complain. In her words at the hearing: “I am not that kind of person who likes to get people into trouble”. We had the opportunity to observe RW’s demeanour at the hearing. She presented as someone who was compliant and conflict-avoidant. We found this to be consistent with her not having reported SB’s swearing and inappropriate behaviour during their shared shift on 25th February 2023 until she was questioned about the Allegations, when it became necessary to do so.
We were more troubled by SB’s failure to report what she claimed to have witnessed earlier than she did, especially because she claimed in her written account to have called ML after the alleged incidents “to come out to sort it”. However, it is apparent that SB did not report the Allegations to ML when she came to visit on 25th February 2023. Had ML been made aware of the Allegations at that stage it is unlikely she would have left RW alone in charge of AG and the other residents when she, according to RW’s unchallenged evidence, gave SB a lift home in her car.
Although SB’s Account is dated 25th February 2023, it was accepted by Mr Fullbrook on behalf of the DBS that ML wasn’t made aware of the Allegations until Monday 27th February 2023. It is apparent that as soon as she was made aware, she initiated an investigation into the Allegations and RW was sent home.
SB’s statement that she was “horrorfied [sic] to see such disgusting behaviour from a member of staff” and that she “went home feeling physically sick with a banging headache” is inconsistent with her failure to report the Allegations to ML on the day in question. She had the perfect opportunity to do so when ML came to the Care Home to visit in response to SB’s telephone call (which SB claimed was made for the purpose of asking ML “to come out to sort it”). Even if she hadn’t wanted to report the Allegations in RW’s presence, given that ML gave SB a lift home in her car, there was also an opportunity for SB to disclose the Allegations in private.
We consider SB’s delay in reporting the Allegations far more undermining of her credibility than RW’s failure to voice her concerns about SB was of RW’s credibility.
- 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
![[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)