[2025] UKUT 219 (AAC)

There are two other matters that we must refer to, albeit that they do not directly relate to any of the five findings made by the DBS which are discussed above. The first relates to the removal of Teresa’s catheter and the second concerns the Appellant’s conviction in the magistrates’ court.

First, we were somewhat concerned about the account we heard of the removal of Teresa’s catheter. Teresa had been hospitalised for a period following an earlier fall and was then discharged to her home in March 2020 with a catheter fitted. The Appellant helped Teresa regain her independence in dealing with her continence and at some point removed her catheter. The circumstances in which this happened are not entirely clear. The Appellant’s written evidence was that she had discussed the matter with Teresa’s GP and with the care agency before removing the catheter (p.113: the GP/ agency “said if that is okay with me I should go ahead”), but we got the impression from her oral evidence that she had removed the catheter of her own initiative and only informed the GP after the event. We recognise that catheter removal is a skilled task (as the process can result in damage to the bladder or urethra) which should ordinarily be carried out by a doctor or nurse and not by an unqualified care assistant. We are not in a position to make a definitive finding either way on this issue but given the case is being remitted to the DBS for a fresh decision it is appropriate to leave the matter to the DBS to consider further in any event.

Secondly, the PNC records show that in July 2023 the Appellant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to the offence under section 7 of the 2006 Act of seeking to engage/offering to engage/engaging in regulated activity from which she was barred. It was recorded that she had made two applications to work in positions working with children/ vulnerable adults. She was sentenced to a fine with costs and a victims surcharge payable. The applications in question were made in November 2021 and December 2021. This was after she had received the DBS final decision letter in July 2021, which had made it clear that if she engaged or sought to engage in regulated activity she would be committing an offence. Obviously, given the timeline, the DBS was not aware of the guilty plea and conviction when it made its Barring Decision.

We explored this issue with the Appellant in questioning by the panel, as had Mr Ryan. We have to say that the Appellant gave us a confused and confusing account which was difficult to follow and make sense of. She said that she had been receiving assistance with her Upper Tribunal appeal from an unqualified non-professional person, who had written to the DBS on her behalf seeking clarification as to the nature of the roles from which she was barred. She told us that this individual had received no response from the DBS, despite waiting four months, and so wrote again to the DBS in the Appellant’s name but using her unqualified representative’s work address. It is difficult to reconcile this account with the PNC record. We recognise that the Appellant may well have not had the benefit of professional advice in the proceedings in the magistrates’ court, but the fact remains that we cannot go behind the guilty plea and the conviction for the section 7 offence relating to the two applications detailed in the PNC record.