![[2025] UKUT 321 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Mitigating
Mitigating
MOO previously had an unblemished record in the care sector which she had worked in for 3 years.
RR was volatile, sometimes violent, and difficult to handle.
Despite this, MOO had previously good relationship with RR and, as is clear from RR’s mother’s evidence which was supportive of MOO, RR’s parents appreciated what MOO had done for RR.
Before MOO hit RR, she had been hit by RR with the scales which hurt MOO. This was understandably provocative, even though MOO’s response was retaliatory or out of frustration and not self-defence.
MOO was newly pregnant and concerned about the impact of being hit with the scales on her unborn child.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the DBS dated 13 February 2024 is dismissed. There was no mistake of fact nor law in the decision to include h
- Introduction
- Factual background
- Undisputed Chronology
- The incident on 5 February 2023
- Investigatory meeting
- Disciplinary Meeting 17 February 2023
- The Internal Appeal – 27 March 2023
- The DBS Decision
- The Appeal to the UT and grounds on which permission was granted
- Legal framework
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- Relevant general tests/principles
- Mistakes of fact and the UT’s fact finding jurisdiction
- Assessment of risk
- The grounds of appeal and the Appellant’s submissions
- Barring Decision Process – unreasonableness and disproportionality
- Mistake of law – procedural fairness
- Mistake of fact
- Facts Found
- Appellant’s evidence
- LR’s evidence
- Voice note of team leader Z
- Findings of fact
- Discussion and Analysis
- Other errors of law
- Irrationality
- Proportionality
- Mitigating
- Aggravating
- Conclusions