[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)

In his oral submissions Mr Fullbrook said that RW’s accounts of what happened had changed in some respects over time. While he acknowledged that the questions AG had been asked were leading, he said there were elements of the record of the interactions with AG that should be given weight, including his indication that he didn’t want RW to look after him anymore.

Mr Fullbrook argued that SB’s evidence was clear, and was not “a complete fabrication”, because RW herself accepted that there was some kind of incident in the corridor outside AG’s room: although the “details” of their accounts differ, it is accepted by RW that AG’s behaviour was getting on her nerves, voices were raised, and AG was physically moved. In his skeleton (which he adopted at the hearing) he argued that while RW denied “the specific and most damaging details”, these concessions “provide some support” for Allegations 1, 3 and 4, and they bolster SB’s credibility “in that it is clear that she did not invent the whole thing.”

In his oral submissions Mr Fullbrook said that “SB clearly knew that something happened” and there was no reason why she would fabricate her account. While RW voiced concern that SB may have made a complaint about her before, there was no evidence to support this speculation on RW’s part, and indeed the reference provided by ML (the Care Home manager) says that no complaints had been made about RW until the Allegations.