[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)

The DBS filed separate bundles of evidence in relation to the Decisions but these were consolidated in one final hearing bundle. Further, the Appellant filed a separate bundle in relation to the appeal. There were therefore two hearing bundles before the Tribunal.

Numerical references in square brackets, [1 etc.], are to page numbers of the DBS consolidated bundle in relation to both Decisions running to 287 pages, unless context dictates otherwise.

In broad summary the background to the appeal is as follows:

(a)

MC is a man in his early-30s. At the material time, MC was working as a health/care support worker – as an agency worker, via a private sector provider [“the Provider”] or “E Services” – supporting vulnerable adults (i.e. service users) in their homes.

(b)

One of those service users [“W”] was a man in his mid-30s with schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder, and diabetes [41] [68]. W was at risk of drug misuse and self-harming behaviour [69], among other things. Significantly, W’s care plan documentation expressly highlighted the importance of the following (among other things):

(i)

Support from staff to ensure W was “emotionally stable” [68].

(ii)

Support regarding “routines with activities that will give [W] a sense of achievement and self-esteem… reduce frustration”… [and] allow [W] less time to ruminate and distract [W] from the use of drugs and self-harming behaviours” [68].

(iii)

W feeling “safe, reassured and listened to” [68].

(iv)

W having his “space” respected [69].

(v)

Staff being there “to listen to whatever [W has] to say and not probe [him] with questions” [69].

(vi)

Staff being “pro-active in anticipating when [W was] becoming low in mood or escalating signs of distress and engage [W] positively” [69].

(c)

On 08.11.21, at around 9.40pm, there was an incident between MC and W [“the Incident”] in and around the kitchen at W’s home. In essence, MC was alleged/found to have caused emotional harm to W by (inappropriately) (1) preventing W using the kitchen and (more importantly); and (2) threatening W with violence.

(d)

The Incident was, later, looked into by the police and the Provider. There was, in particular, some CCTV footage, viewed by both the police and the Provider, which captured the Incident [“the CCTV Footage”]. W contacted the police, directly, about the Incident [86]. The CCTV Footage is important: the UT considered it with care and watched it several times before and during the hearing; It is addressed in greater detail below. The DBS submits that it is sufficient evidence, without more, to support the Decisions.

(e)

Any potential criminal allegation was dealt with by way of “community resolution” including a letter of apology to W from MC [98] (which, unfortunately, is not in the Bundle). No further criminal action was taken. In addition, the Provider stopped using MC and/or “dismissed” him.

(f)

Referrals were duly made to relevant bodies concerning safeguarding namely CQC and DBS. DBS decided to include MC on the barred lists in Decision 1 and Decision 2.

(g)

MC appealed to the UT against Decision 1 on 9 October 2022. There was no separate appeal lodged against Decision 2 but the Tribunal made directions in December 2023 granting permission to appeal against both Decisions and joining the appeals.

In chronological order, the key material dates and events are (with references to the page numbers of the First Decision bundle in [] square brackets):