Ground 3 – whether MC had no regard to what the manager had said etc
Ground 3 – whether MC had no regard to what the manager had said etc
Ground 3 is set out at para 12(3) – and paras 25-27 – of the Grounds dated 15 December 2023.
It seems to be clear from the CCTV Footage that MC did not, in fact, say to W, expressly, that he didn’t care what the manager (GS) had said.
In any event any finding that MC’s overall behaviours showed an attitude that he was entitled to disregard the Care Plan and/or instructions of management and/or enforce his own rules is in fact not mistaken. It is well-supported by the Relevant Conduct, including MC’s words: “Don’t tell me I’m not [GS] – I’m just telling you something… you have to obey” etc. Indeed, the apparent acceptance by MC, part-way through the Incident, that W was entitled to use the kitchen for the purposes he was using it at the time, is an aggravating factor. MC’s conduct thereafter was/is, as a result, more problematic and more culpable: it was then about, it seems, his authority and his perceived ability/right to enforce the same on W (W has to “obey”. MC will, in effect, force W into it, and threaten W with direct violence).
Again, any such mistake would be immaterial, given the other elements of culpable conduct. Nor does it seem to have been a feature of Decision 2.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the Appellant’s appeal against the first decision of the DBS dated 13 July 2022 is allowed in part. There was a mistake of law in including him on the Childr
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Factual background
- The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 1
- The DBS procedure in relation to Decision 2
- The procedure in relation to the Appeal to the UT
- The CCTV Footage
- Legal framework
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- Relevant general tests/principles
- The grounds of appeal and the Appellant’s submissions
- Facts Found
- Discussion and Analysis
- The 8 grounds of appeal for which permission was granted
- Ground 2 – whether MC “invaded” W’s personal space etc
- Ground 3 – whether MC had no regard to what the manager had said etc
- Ground 4 – whether MC had caused “emotional harm” to W etc
- Ground 5 – whether MC failed to report and/or concealed his conduct etc
- Ground 6 – whether MC had demonstrated “callousness” etc
- Ground 7 – whether there was a “significant risk” of future harm etc
- Ground 8 – in relation to the “transferability” to children etc
- The three grounds of appeal pursued at the hearing
- Issue 1 : Whether the DBS applied the correct statutory test and evidential threshold in deciding to bar the Appellant, including whether it adequately considered mitigating evidence or contradictory
- Issue 2 Proportionality issue : Whether the indefinite bar constitutes a disproportionate interference with the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)
- Allowing in part the appeal against Decision 1 – inclusion on the Children’s Barred List
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 192 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)