[2025] UKUT 321 (AAC)

LR is RR’s mother. She provided a witness statement and gave oral evidence in support of MOO. Her witness statement includes the following:

“2.

I have offered to support MOO by providing this written statement based on what my husband and I witnessed and were told in relation to the incident on Sunday 5th February 2023.

3.

On that day, as part of our weekly routine, my husband and I went to the Home to collect our daughter, RR.

4.

When RR got into the car, she said spontaneously, I hit MOO. She then added something like, I said I was sorry. or She has forgiven me.

5.

Later that day, possibly after attending a church service, although I do not remember exactly, the house manager, Ms EO, phoned my husband to inform him that there had been an incident.

6.

RR became distressed during that call and expressed worry that she was in trouble. Ms EO wanted us to reassure RR, that she was not in trouble.

7.

Ms EO went on to state that it was MOO who had allegedly hit RR and that the matter had been reported to the police.

8.

My husband, who holds Power of Attorney for RR jointly with me, attended a meeting a few days later where he informed the police officer involved in the case that we would not be pressing charges. We know the police officer personally, as he was our next-door

neighbour as a child, and had attended primary school with RR. We believe he is familiar with RR’s learning disabilities and autistic needs since childhood.

9.

My husband and I were both confused by the entire situation. Based on RR’s personality, she is usually very quick to report if someone has upset or hit her. It was surprising to us that RR did not show such concern in this incident.

10.

We also wish to express that MOO had been an extremely dedicated and patient member of staff since she started working with RR, around February 2022. During the difficult period following the national lockdown, RR’s behaviours had increased significantly, many of them physical. Despite this, MOO showed continued care, perseverance, and kindness.

11.

In fact, MOO’s support helped RR build a sense of trust and security, and we as parents were deeply appreciative of this.

12.

We were later informed by another member of staff that the incident may have occurred during a disagreement about RR needing to be weighed, which she refused. This is not uncommon given RR’s needs, and again we believe MOO handled such challenges with patience.

13.

MOO also made special efforts to build a bond with her hair, something which RR really enjoyed.

14.

1 personally provide this statement to explain MOO’s role in this matter, and the nature of her relationship with our daughter, which we have always seen as positive.”

LR gave extensive supplementary oral evidence in chief expanding upon this statement. It was all consistent with the statement and included reference to the Whatsapp messages she sent to MOO checking if MOO was ok and assuring MOO of her gratitude.

LR was not cross examined by Ms Hartley. This was on the basis that LR had not been present during the incident and could not give any direct evidence.

We are satisfied that LR was an honest and reliable witness. We were impressed by her and are very grateful that she attended the hearing and gave oral evidence, particularly how sensitive and stressful it would have been to give evidence about her own daughter and RR’s behaviour to others and its impact. Nonetheless, we were not able to place weight on LR’s beliefs that RR would have reported to her if she had been hit by MOO or that MOO would have been patient and not have hit RR in return. This is because LR was not present to witness the incident and did not have the benefit of being a direct witness. We accept all the other evidence she gave.