“How we reached this decision We are satisfied that you meet the criteria for regulated activity. This is because you worked as a Support Worker with [PC]. We have considered all the information we hold and are satisfied of the following: - On05/02/2023 whilst employed as a Support Worker for [PC], you struck service user [RR] on her back with your fist. Having considered this, DBS is satisfied you engaged in relevant conduct in relation to vulnerable adults. This is because you have engaged in conduct which endangered a vulnerable adult or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult. We are satisfied a barring decision is appropriate. In representations you denied that you punched RR as described by the witnesses. You stated that the description of a clenched fist, which was described as a big punch which made a loud bang on the back should have left a bruise as RR tends to easily bruise easily. A body map was done on the day following the incident and there was no bruise that came up according to the team lead. This is consistent with you version given to your employer and although it is acknowledged that there was no evidence of bruising this does not evidence that you could not have hit RR as described. You confirmed that you reported on the day that RR had grabbed the scales from you and hit you with them on the chest. As RR went to do it again you raised your arms to protect yourself and the scales hit your arm. Your colleagues did not intervene. You remembered raising your hands to protect your face and stomach whilst walking towards the table to grab the scales. Your sole intention was to keep the service user, as well as yourself, safe. The reason you stretched out your hands was to try and protect your stomach while you quickly rushed towards the table to grab the scales. This was to prevent any possible escalation of putting the service user or yourself at risk. In doing so, your hand could have touched RR's back, which is very possible considering the speed of the incident, but this was never your intention. Had you realised at the time that there had been any contact from you to RR, you would have apologised to RR immediately and self-reported that contact in your report on Nourish. As it was, you believe you were in shock and did not even register the comment made from one of your work colleagues who said she spoke to you and stated, "you just hit her". You suggested that your colleagues may have been offended by your innocent remark about Filipino's which caused ill feeling and which you apologised for. After that you observed a coldness towards you but never had the discussion again. You pointed this out during your hearing, but it was never captured or looked into by your employer. You assumed the reason why they did not try to intervene in the incident between RR and you emanated from the unfriendly attitude you had received from them after that conversation. You had not previously stated that you rushed towards the table to grab the scales whilst your hands were raised and could have made contact with RR's back. Both witnesses describe RR walking away to exit the room when you took steps towards her before hitting her with a clenched fist and which do not describe you trying to grab the scales at this point. DBS is satisfied that the witness accounts are reliable. There is also no evidence that you had previously offered the employer this motive for your colleagues to fail to intervene or collude to make false allegations against you. Given these inconsistencies and the lack of any evidence to support your claims, your account in representations is considered to be unreliable. RR's mother maintained her view that you provided good care to RR who was safe in her care. A further supporting statement from RR's mother was provide. This described RR's challenging behaviour and your positive support. RR told them that she had hit you and they thought the allegation that you hit RR was odd. RR would be very angry if someone hit her, and they were sure she would have told them. In support of yourself, her husband also phoned the then manager and asked him to be lenient with you because of your kindness and perseverance with RR. Whilst it is acknowledged that RR's family remain supportive of you this does not undermine the findings. Colleagues [BB] and [MJL] along with RR herself all reported that you had hit RR as alleged and following a thorough investigation the employer found the allegation proven. DBS is now satisfied that you did behave as alleged. DBS is satisfied that the context is as follows. You were providing support to service user RR who had learning difficulties but had capacity. You had worked with RR for several months and knew her behaviours very well. RR regularly displayed challenging behaviour and was known to be physically aggressive towards staff. Two colleagues provided corroborating accounts or the incident and there is no apparent reason for them to make malicious allegations and are therefore considered to be credible. They both described how you had some weighing scales to check RR's weight however RR became agitated and angry and knocked the scales out of your hand hitting you as she did so. RR was seen to walk away and had her back to you when you took a couple of steps towards RR and hit her on the back with a clenched fist. This was described as a big punch which made a loud bang on the back. Both then describe how one colleague challenged you that you had just hit RR. Although there was no evidence of bruising and RR did not react to the assault it is likely to have caused a degree physical and emotional harm. RR later disclosed the assault to police however she and her family did not wish to press charges. You were dismissed from your employment but consistently denied assaulting RR during your appeal, raising a number of concerns about the disciplinary process. Although you suggested that RR had a history of accusations and that the witnesses were not consistent, given the corroborating witness accounts the reliability of this allegation is not in doubt. It is acknowledged that RR and her family did not wish to press charges and there was no body map done however this does not support your case that you did not act as alleged. You suggested that the investigation was unfair however there is no evidence to support this. Your union representative challenged why the witnesses had not attended fact finding meetings however this was addressed where these were conducted after the appeal hearing and which formed part of the investigation report. The investigation addressed your challenges and considered all evidence thoroughly. The witness fact finding meetings where completed however it was decided not to interview RR on what appear to be reasonable grounds. It was consistently reported by three people including the victim that you had punched RR on her back with a closed fist. This went against your version where you denied the allegation however it was concluded that you did hit RR on the back and recommended the outcome be upheld. The decision to uphold the findings was confirmed in detail in the appeal outcome letter which is considered to be a reasonable conclusion given the evidence available. There are significant concerns that you demonstrated a belief that would endorse harmful behaviour. Despite your experience and knowledge of RR's challenging behaviours and knowledge of how to manage these behaviours, you reacted poorly to being hit by RR demonstrating a belief that RR deserved physical punishment for assaulting you. There are significant concerns that you demonstrated a lack of empathy with a service user in your care. You appeared unwilling to empathise with RR who was particularly vulnerable due to learning difficulties when you assaulted her by hitting her on the back with your fist which is likely to have caused physical and emotional harm. Your harmful behaviour occurred in regulated activity where you reacted poorly to RR's behaviour towards you by deliberately assaulting RR when she presented no risk to you which is likely to have caused physical and emotional harm. Repeating your behaviour is always likely to cause significant physical and emotional harm. It is acknowledged that you provided an apology and expressed regret that the incident caused distress to RR however you did not fully acknowledge your harmful behaviour. Your behaviour occurred in circumstances that are not uncommon in regulated activity and given your lack of acknowledgement and the concerns raised by your harmful beliefs and lack of empathy for those in your care, DBS are concerned that you could repeat your behaviour in future. Repeating this behaviour in regulated activity with vulnerable adults by reacting poorly to challenging behaviour by assaulting service users, would cause significant physical and emotional harm and therefore it is appropriate to include you in the Adults' List. Your rights underArticle 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) have been considered and afforded and a bar on the Adults' List is an appropriate and proportionate response to the risk of harm presented. It is recognised that a bar would impact on your right to a private life as you would be unable to engage in Regulated Activity with this group which the evidence demonstrates you have done previously as a Support Worker. It is acknowledged that a bar may cause a degree of personal stigma and may adversely impact your mental health. A safeguarding decision must however take into account not only the rights of an individual but the need to protect those in Regulated Activity from harm. Given the risk of further emotional or physical harm if you were to engage in regulated activity, a bar is an appropriate, proportionate and necessary safeguarding measure and given the risk presented and that there are no other safeguarding measure given in place.”
“The safeguarding regime 18. The DBS is a body corporate (section 87 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")). It is not a servant or agent of the Crown (POFA, Schedule 8, paragraph 15(1)(a)). Barring decisions are part of the core functions of the DBS, and the Secretary of State is precluded from giving directions to the DBS in respect of any such core function (POFA, Schedule 8, paragraphs 8 and 14). 19. The arrangements governing the DBS's functions of protecting children (and vulnerable adults) are contained in theSafeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act"). Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act provides, at paragraph 3: " (1) This paragraph applies to a person if a. it appears to DBS that the person i. has (at any time) engaged in relevant conduct and ii. is or has been, or might in future, be engaged in regulated activity relating to children and b. DBS proposes to include him in the children's barred list. (2) DBS must give the person the opportunity to make representations as to why he should not be included in the children's barred list. (3) DBS must include the person in the children's barred list if a. it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct aa. it has reason to believe that the person is or has been or might in future be engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and b. it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list." 20. "Relevant conduct" is defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 as including conduct of a sexual nature involving a child, "if it appears to DBS that the conduct is inappropriate." It also includes conduct which puts a child at risk of harm. 21. Teaching children is a regulated activity under section 5 and Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the 2006 Act. A person included in the children's barred list is prohibited from engaging in regulated activity relating to children (section 3 of the 2006 Act ). 22. The requirement that, before making a barring decision, the DBS must afford the individual concerned the opportunity to make representations as to why they should not be included in the children's barred list, is addressed in more detail in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3. This provides, relevantly, in sub-paragraph (3) that: "The opportunity to make representations does not include the opportunity to make representations that findings of fact made by a competent body were wrongly made". Sub-paragraph (4) states that findings of fact made by a competent body are findings of fact made in proceedings before the Secretary of State in the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions under section 141B of the 2002 Act (i.e. proceedings before the TRA) or in proceedings before certain other specified professional regulators, including, for example, the General Medical Council, the General Optical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. 23. The ambit of the role and functions of the DBS was explained by the Divisional Court in R(SXM) v DBS[2020] EWHC 624 (Admin) ,[2020] 1 WLR 3259 in these terms at [38]: "… it is clear that the function of the DBS is a protective forward-looking function, intended to prevent the risk of harm to children by excluding persons from involvement in regulated activities. The DBS is not performing a prosecutorial or adjudicatory role and it is not engaged in considering complaints from individuals and imposing punishments. It may, as part of its task, have to form a view as to whether a person has engaged in conduct likely to endanger a child or sexually inappropriate conduct, or the case may involve conduct posing a risk of harm. It will need also to consider questions as to whether it is appropriate to include the person on the children's barred list. However it is not there to receive and adjudicate upon complaints from individuals." That explains why information about whether a person's name is on the children's barred list is not publicly available. It is restricted to those who intend to employ or engage someone who would be involved in regulated activity with children. In SXM it was decided that even someone who alleged that they had been abused as a child by a person referred by a local authority to the DBS for determination as to whether they should be included in the children's barred list, had no status to seek information from the DBS as to the outcome of that referral. 24.Section 4 of the 2006 Act provides for a right of appeal against a barring decision to the UT, with the permission of the UT, on the grounds that the DBS has made a mistake on any point of law or in any finding of fact which it has made and on which the barring decision was based. If the UT finds that the DBS made such a mistake, it must either direct the DBS to remove the appellant from the barred list or remit the matter to the DBS for a fresh decision. If it takes the latter course, the UT may set out any findings of fact which it has made on which the DBS must base its new decision. 25. In determining such an appeal, the UT is not restricted to consideration of the information which was before the DBS decision maker. It has the power to hear oral evidence, and to make its own findings of fact and draw its own inferences from all the evidence before it. It will not defer to the DBS in factual matters but will afford appropriate weight to fact-findings by the DBS in matters that engage its expertise, such as the assessment of risk to the public: see PF v DBS[2020] UKUT 256 (AAC) at [51], approved by this Court in Kihembo v DBS[2023] EWCA Civ 1547 at [26]. 26. In the present case, the UT accurately summarised the case law on the nature and extent of its "mistake of fact" jurisdiction undersection 4(2)(b) of the 2006 Act at [39] to [47] of its determination. It referred, among other matters, to the decision in DBS v JHB[2023] EWCA Civ 982 in which it was confirmed by the Court of Appeal that a finding of fact may be "wrong" even if there was some evidence to support it or it was not irrational, if it is a finding about which the UT has heard evidence which was not before the DBS and the new evidence shows that the finding made by the DBS was wrong. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the UT had erred by substituting its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the DBS decision-maker in circumstances where (i) the evidence was identical, and (ii) the UT had not held that the DBS had made findings which were not open to a reasonable decision-maker (i.e. irrational). 27. The UT also referred to the more recent case of DBS v RI[2024] EWCA Civ 95 , in which a different constitution of the Court of Appeal found it difficult to discern the ratio of JHB save possibly that "it may be authority for the proposition that if the UT has exactly the same material before it as was before the DBS, then the tribunal should not overturn the findings of the DBS unless they were irrational or there was simply no evidence to justify the decision": see the judgment of Bean LJ, with which Males LJ and Lewis LJ agreed, at [33]. Males LJ, in his concurring judgment, with which Lewis LJ also agreed, indicated that the restrictive approach adopted in JHB should be confined to those cases where the appellant does not give oral evidence before the appellate tribunal, or gives no evidence relevant to the question whether they committed the relevant act relied upon. The UT quoted from his judgment where he said (at [49]): "In conferring a right of appeal in the terms of section 4(2)(b), Parliament must therefore have intended that it would be open to a person included on a barred list to contend before the Upper Tribunal that the DBS was mistaken to find that they committed the relevant act – or in other words, to contend that they did not commit the relevant act and that the decision of the DBS that they did was therefore mistaken. On its plain words, the section does not require any more granular mistake to be identified than that." 28. The UT directed itself in accordance with that approach. It first satisfied itself that whilst the DBS decision could have been better explained, and different findings could have been made, the findings made by the DBS were open to the decision maker on the evidence before them. It then considered further evidence, including the TRA decision, to ascertain whether any of those findings were mistaken ([88] and [89]). 29. For completeness, Paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act provides for the right of a person who is included in a barred list to apply to the DBS for a review of their inclusion (though the permission of the DBS is required to make such an application). However, sub-paragraph (3) provides that such an application can only be made after the end of the minimum barred period (which is prescribed by regulations, currently SI 2008/474) which in XYZ's case is 10 years.”
‘43. By way of preliminary observation, the role of the Upper Tribunal on considering an appeal needs to be borne in mind. The Act is intended to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It does so by providing that the DBS may include people within a list of persons who are barred from engaging in certain activities with children or vulnerable adults. The DBS must decide whether or not the criteria for inclusion of a person within the relevant barred list are satisfied, or, as here, if it is satisfied that it is no longer appropriate to continue to include a person's name in the list. The role of the Upper Tribunal on an appeal is to consider if the DBS has made a mistake on any point of law or in any finding of fact. It cannot consider the appropriateness of listing (see section 4(3) of the Act). That is, unless the decision of the DBS is legally or factually flawed, the assessment of the risk presented by the person concerned, and the appropriateness of including him in a list barring him from regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults, is a matter for the DBS. … 55. Section 4(7) of the Act provides that where the Upper Tribunal remits a matter to the DBS it “may set out any findings of fact which it has made (on which DBS must base its new decision)”. It is neither necessary nor feasible to set out precisely the limits on that power. The following should, however, be borne in mind. First, the Upper Tribunal may set out findings of fact. It will need to distinguish carefully a finding of fact from value judgments or evaluations of the relevance or weight to be given to the fact in assessing appropriateness. The Upper Tribunal may do the former but not the latter. By way of example only, the fact that a person is married and the marriage subsists may be a finding of fact. A reference to a marriage being a "strong" marriage or a "mutually-supportive one" may be more of a value judgment rather than a finding of fact. A reference to a marriage being likely to reduce the risk of a person engaging in inappropriate conduct is an evaluation of the risk. The third "finding" would certainly not involve a finding of fact. Secondly, an Upper Tribunal will need to consider carefully whether it is appropriate for it to set out particular facts on which the DBS must base its decision when remitting a matter to the DBS for a new decision. For example, an Upper Tribunal would have to have sufficient evidence to find a fact. Further, given that the primary responsibility for assessing the appropriateness of including a person in the children's barred list (or the adults’ barred list) is for the DBS, the Upper Tribunal will have to consider whether, in context, it is appropriate for it to find facts on which the DBS must base its new decision.’
‘The starting point for the tribunal’s consideration of factual matters is the DBS decision in the sense that an appellant must demonstrate a mistake of law or fact. However, given that the tribunal may consider factual matters for itself, the starting point may not determine the outcome of the appeal. The starting point is likely to make no practical difference in those cases in which the tribunal receives evidence that was not before the decision-maker.’
‘In determining whether the DBS has made a mistake of fact, the tribunal will consider all the evidence before it and is not confined to the evidence before the decision-maker. The tribunal may hear oral evidence for this purpose…. In reaching its own factual findings, the tribunal is able to make findings based directly on the evidence and to draw inferences from the evidence before it...The tribunal will not defer to the DBS in factual matters but will give appropriate weight to the DBS’s factual findings in matters that engage its expertise.’
“Date:5 Feb 2023 7:54 pm Subject: Re: **S House Incident - 05/02/23. To: EO Cc: Hello Emma, Thank you for your concern and sorry for the late response. The pain reliever I was given had a drowsy effect and I had to take a break from my phone. Find below my account of the incident and Night Shift with RR The Night Shift started 19:30pm, RR slept at about 23:00pm and woke up at 6am. She was in her room talking to herself, I went in to meet her, we greeted and chatted a bit as she spoke of all her obsessions before I prompted her to observe her personal care. At about 07:30am, I offered RR a breakfast of coco pops and with the assistance of the morning staff as they arrived at about that time (BB and MJL). After that, I went upstairs at about 07:35am to get the scale, when I got back, I came in through the kitchen door into the lounge. I was removing the scale from the pack when I prompted RR to come check her weight. She screamed and shouted saying I am not checking my weight, she charged towards me and quickly grabbed the scale of my hand, I was standing at the kitchen door which was shut and there was no room for escape at the moment. She got hold of the scale and hit me the first time on my chest, upon raising the scale the second time to hit me, I barricaded my body with my palms out and both arms crossed side by side. She hit me a second time this time on my arm/ palm. All the while, the two day staff were sitting down on the dining area and did not intervene or try to de-escalate the situation. RR dropped the scale on the table and angrily walked out of the lounge door into the hallway and went into the second lounge to meet TB’s staff complaining to them that I said she should check her weight when she has a doctor’s appointment on the 15th of February,2023. I could hear the conversation from the lounge while I was packing up the scale, one of the day staff (MJL) said to me that I hit RR, I said that I didn’t and I was in pains from the impact of being hit with metal end of the scale. MJL did not further comment. The second day staff (BB) did not make any comment at all as she was on her phone. TB’s staff encouraged her that the weight check is one of the task to be done. She returned to the lounge and I asked her gently again if she will want to check her weight again. She accepted and climbed the scale, we checked the weight together and she assisted with recording it on Nourish. I and RR had a brief chat before the end of my shift and she apologized for hitting me asking me not to write an incident report all these conversation were made in the presence of the day staff and to their hearing. I also did a handover to the day staff and ended by shift at 8am. If you need any more information, kindly let me know. Warm regards”
“2. I am a dedicated care professional and have worked with vulnerable service users, including adults and children with special needs for three years. 3. At the time of the incident, I was employed by PC and was supporting a service user referred to as RR, a young adult with complex needs. 4. I am a mother and was pregnant during the incident. I have a personal understanding of the vulnerability of children and those with additional needs. I take my professional duties seriously and have always acted in the best interests of the individuals I support. 5. The referral to the DBS arose from an allegation that I had assaulted RR during a shift. I categorically deny this allegation. 6. RR is known to be verbal, expressive, and capable of giving a detailed account of her experiences. However, in this instance, the manager, EO, assisted in formulating RR's statement. The police report clearly notes that EO filled in the gaps for RR. 7. RR's Care Plan, which I had stated during the internal investigation, records that she has a history of making false allegations against staff. This information was not appropriately considered by either my employer or the DBS in reaching their conclusions. 8. On the day of the alleged incident, RR voluntarily told her parents, without pressure, that she had hurt me and was sorry. This was said before police were involved and in the absence of staff, which means that her statement was spontaneous and truthful. 9. Her parents are a stable support system, and their account of RR's first reaction should have carried significant weight. RR's mother is also preparing a witness statement for this appeal which corroborates this account. 10.1 also possess an audio voice message from the Team Leader, sent to me after the incident, in which she absolves me of assaulting RR. I seek to include this audio message in the appeal bundle. It evidences that internal management at the time did not believe I committed any misconduct. 11.There was a witness, a staff member who interacted with RR immediately after the incident. Despite my repeated requests, the staff member's account was only taken very late and finally disregarded. The screenshots of the staff conversations which further support my innocence are in the index bundle 12. Prior to the incident, I had raised concerns about EO's professional conduct, including the sharing of sensitive service user information via WhatsApp and improper communication of medical details. I raised this issue during a supervision session with the Team Leader. 13. Emma expressed dissatisfaction after I raised these concerns. Since then, I experienced several forms of victimisation from her, including the exclusion of favourable evidence and the manipulation of investigation procedures. 14. A current staff member recently contacted me to share a disturbing incident involving RR. According to the staff member, RR had accused her of hitting her. In response to this allegation, EO conducted an interview with RR and determined that RR had the capacity to be interrogated in relation to the matter. This is in contrast to how EO assessed RR's capacity in my case, where she concluded that RR lacked such capacity. The contrary assessments show a clear inconsistency and bias in how capacity was determined, apparently influenced by who the accused was. Unlike the other staff member, I was not afforded the same level of procedural fairness. 15. A copy of the WhatsApp chat between myself and the staff member has been included in the case bundle. 16. Also, RR's mother personally informed me that EO had made her aware of the incident and that the matter had been reported to the police. She also described how RR appeared distressed during the conversation, and expressed fear that she might be in trouble, which made her to apologised to me directly. This shows the level of emotional response from RR and the seriousness with which the allegation against the other staff member was addressed in contrast to the lack of fairness and consistency that I was given during the handling of my case. 17.1 believe the swift decision to implicate me was partially driven by bias and retaliation due to my earlier whistleblowing, and not an objective assessment of the incident. 18. My union representative and I pleaded with management to allow RR to be interviewed, as she has the mental capacity to give a clear account of what occurred. This request was repeatedly refused. 19. At no stage was I offered formal post Incident support by my employer, despite being pregnant and reporting physical pain. I had to attend A&E myself following the incident. 20.The DBS decision appears to have relied exclusively on the EO's account and those of two staff members, without assessing my version or RR's family's initial reports. This indicates a presumption of guilt and disregard for the burden of proof, 21.The decision further stated that my apology was not sufficient and lacked empathy. I would respectfully state that it is difficult to apologise for something I did not do, as it would amount to an admission of guilt. However, I deeply empathise with RR and all vulnerable service users that I have supported. 22.1 am a compassionate and caring professional who has always placed the safety and dignity of service users above all. I have worked diligently and faithfully in my role and have never before faced disciplinary action or safeguarding concerns. 23.The trauma of this accusation, combined with the lack of support and the loss of my career, has had a significant emotional and financial impact on me and my family. 24.1 respectfully request that the Tribunal reconsider this matter in light of this witness statement and also the following: i. The audio message from my Team Leader exonerating me. ii. The witness statement from RR's mother confirming RR's admission and apology. iii. Screenshot of RR's statement to parents iv. Screenshots of internal staff conversations v. RR's history of false allegations. vi. The procedural unfairness of the investigation and lack of direct testimony from RR.”
“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 Sunday5th 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.”
“11.26am On 5th of February 2023, we arrived in front of S House around 7.25am. We heard RR inside her lounge area with a loud and agitated voice. When we walked inside, RR went to us and greeted ‘Good Morning’ with unhappy and low tone voice. And she goes back to the daily topic about her obsession while walking to her lounge. …I went to the lounge and MOO asked me to get a laundry pod and weighing scale upstairs. But in only brought the laundry pod because I did not find the scales. So that time MOO look for it and brought in the lounge area. When RR saw it, she get mad and shout that she doesn’t want to do it. She runs toward to MOO and grab the scale with a force. I knew MOO get hurt because I heard the ‘Aww/ouch’. Then RR walked back with the scale and then MOO hits her on the back.” “12.13pm Good day to you EO, I am writing this email to you due to the me incident What we witnessed this morning that involves service user and the night shift staff. My apologies but I can't remember that exact time it happened all I know was that it was around 7:30am to 8am. When it was time for her weight to be checked, MOO went upstairs to get the weighing scales to weigh her, RR was very angry, screaming and shouting telling why she needs to check her weight today then RR suddenly ran towards her and tried to grab the scaled was there on the radiator side and I was not able to see the whole scene if RR really hits MOO on her arm , things happened so fast. When RR turned around MOO ran after her and hit her on her back (left side upper part). RR went to TB's lounge to complain to TB staff then the TB staff eventually was able to encourage her to do it and RR finally agreed but insisted that she has to record it her self so, MOO gave her cellphone so RR can record it….” b) BB and MJL went on to give further, more detailed accounts, over time to the employer which were equally consistent such as those given on21 March 2023 [51]-[54]. c) In the transcript of BB’s fact finding interview dated21 March 2023 at [51-52] BB stated: ‘So MOO asked RR to do the weighing and RR was very angry. So MOO went and got the weighing scales from upstairs and brought them downstairs. Eventually things all happened so fast. RR was starting to grab the scales from MOO and then I was on the radiator side…MOO is by the door (the door to the kitchen) and MOO is to the side of me and RR is on her sofa. She came straight towards us, she garbed (sic) the weighing scales but, I cannot remember whether she hit MOO’s hand/fingers or anywhere else. All I heard was an “ouch”….RR went to get the weighing scales, she went towards the door exit. At this time they had swapped places during the altercation. RR went to exit through the other door. RR had her back to MOO and this is when I saw MOO hit RR on the back. It was about two or three steps…(BB demonstrates a closed fist, and explains that it was on the pinkie side and explains that she saw MOO hit RR). It was a big punch to the back….My colleague challenge (sic) MOO and said that she had seen her hit her’ (Flag 10 – [51-52]). c) In the transcript of MJL’s fact finding interview dated21 March 2023 at [53-54]: ‘…Scale went with some force like this one (MJL described a hand and indicates the area between the thumb and the first finger to where the corner of the scales, caught MOO) But she didn’t hit MOO with the scale…I was in front of them at this point and I was looking at them…[MOO] stepped in and (maybe one step/two) and then hit her with her fist on her back, like this (MJL demonstrates with a clenched fist, on the pinkie side referring to the little finger, hitting RR on the upper back)…we heard a loud bang on the back…I just told to MOO “you just hit her”
‘The Police Officer asked [RR]if she was able to talk to him about what happened? [RR] explained that (“a staff member/name disclosed to the Police by [RR]”) had hit her on the back and that she did not like what happened to her (sic)’ (Flag 3 – [38]). It is unlikely that EO made a false note of the meeting between RR and the police or ‘filled in the gaps’