“We are satisfied that you meet the criteria for regulated activity. This is because you volunteered within the [] Centre of Oncology. We have considered all the information we hold and are satisfied of the following: That on9 February 2023 whilst volunteering on Ward [A] of the [] Centre of Oncology, you entered the room of a male patient and attempted to look at/make contact with the patient’s genitals by unbuttoning his pyjama bottoms before being disturbed by a noise from outside of the patient’s room 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. It is also considered that you have engaged in relevant conduct in relation to children, specifically conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that child or would be likely to endanger him or her. We are satisfied a barring decision is appropriate. This is because on9 February 2023 whilst volunteering on Ward [A] of the [] Centre of Oncology, you entered the room of a male patient and attempted to look at/make contact with the patient’s genitals by unbuttoning his pyjama bottoms before being disturbed by a noise from outside of the patient’s room. As a result of your behaviour, the victim experienced some degree of emotional harm as he felt the need to report the behaviours. The DBS is also satisfied that it is reasonable to conclude that should the behaviours be repeated in the future, a similar or more significant level of harm would likely be present. The DBS has relied upon a Structured Judgement Process (SJP) risk assessment tool when considering the risk of future harm it appears you may pose to vulnerable groups. The evidence provided indicates that you have attempted to take advantage of the opportunities presented to you by virtue of the voluntary position you held on the ward. Specifically, that you attempted to unbutton the pyjama bottoms of a vulnerable adult with the intention of looking at/touching the vulnerable adults genitals. In considering these behaviours, the DBS is also satisfied that you have attempted to exploit the trust that would have been placed within you by vulnerable adults in your care, again by virtue of the role which you held. Whilst it is not clear what your motivation was, the DBS is satisfied that you attempted to deceive the victim in an attempt to gain some form of personal gain/gratification. There is no evidence which would appear to demonstrate that you have considered the negative consequences which may have been present for either the vulnerable adult or yourself. In considering all of the above, the DBS is satisfied there is clear information which would indicate that you hold an exploitative attitude and that this attitude is linked to the harmful conduct which has been present. Additionally, in considering the behaviours exhibited by you, the DBS is satisfied that you have shown an inability, disinterest or unwillingness to empathise with the vulnerable adult in this case. It does not appear that you have considered the impact of your behaviour from the perspective of the vulnerable adult or if you had done, it does not appear you considered this to be relevant or you chose to prioritise your own needs above those of the vulnerable adult. Whilst it is acknowledged this had been an isolated incident, the DBS is satisfied that your behaviours are serious enough to warrant definite concerns in regards to the risk of future harm you appear to pose. The DBS has considered that the behaviours exhibited by you were carried out whilst you were volunteering in a hospital. In considering this it is acknowledged that by virtue of your role you would have had the opportunity to engage with vulnerable adults and children alike. The evidence which has been provided indicates that the inappropriate behaviours which have been exhibited by you, were carried out in respect of a vulnerable adult. Taking this into consideration the DBS is satisfied that you have attempted to carry out inappropriate behaviours in respect of vulnerable adults, with no evidence of any responsibility, insight or remorse. As such, the DBS is satisfied that it is appropriate to include you on the Adults’ Barred List. Whilst the behaviour was not carried out in respect of children, it is considered that the role which you held would have allowed you to gain access to children. As it is unclear what your motivation was the DBS has been unable to identify the driving factors behind it and therefore cannot be confident you would not repeat your behaviour in the future in respect of children. The DBS has arrived at a conclusion that you have acted in an opportunistic and exploitative manner with the intention of gaining some form of self-gratification. The DBS is of the belief that the evidence provided supports a finding that you would likely repeat the behaviours, should you be given the opportunity, in respect of children due to your apparent exploitative and opportunistic behaviours. As such, the DBS is satisfied that it is appropriate to include you on the Children’s Barred List. The DBS has considered that a decision to include you on the Adults’ Barred List and/or the Children’s Barred List would likely have a significant impact on your future employment and voluntary opportunities. It is also acknowledged that this may have a detrimental impact on your ability to earn an income or pursue a career path which involves working with/volunteering with vulnerable groups. It is noted that as you have volunteered within the healthcare sector and it is likely that you will have gained valuable knowledge and experience which may not be fully utilised should you need to choose a different career path. The DBS is aware that inclusion on the barred list(s) can bring with some social stigma, however it is considered that inclusion is not widely available and would usually only come to attention on future Enhanced Disclosure and Barred List (EDBL) checks or when the individual themselves chooses to disclose it to any other third parties. In summary, the DBS has considered that inclusion on the barred list(s) would be a significant interference with your Article 8 Human Rights. Nevertheless, the DBS has a statutory function to protect vulnerable groups from risk if future harm. It is acknowledged that as a result of your behaviours you were subject to a disciplinary process and were dismissed and that your behaviours were also considered by the local authority. It is noted within the evidence provided that the victim in this case did not support any further police involvement and you therefore did not come to the attention of the police. In considering how the disciplinary process concluded and the lack of involvement from other agencies, the DBS is not satisfied that there are currently any suitable safeguarding measures in place which would protect vulnerable groups from risk of future harm adequately. As such, the DBS is satisfied that it is proportionate action to take to include you on both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List…”
“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.’
“Date9 Feb 2023 , 12:25 See security details Hi [RHP], I went into Ward [A] today and I first checked the Dani centres and restocked them. M[] then asked me about sticking some posters up which I then did (on the board). I helped B[], (I believe that’s her name) to load the cutlery. Spoons, forks and knives in a plastic sleeve. I then went to bed 8 and stood outside it whilst I was speaking to two female patients with P[] (the domestic cleaner). At no point did I speak to a Male patient today, nothing whatsoever. I used the toilets twice (by myself) and did nothing else. God’s honest truth, nothing whatsoever. I did NOT interact with a male patient today. I would like to know what will happen further.11 Feb 2023 , 19:03 See security details Hi [RHP], sorry to email you on a Saturday, although placement was only 2 hours on Thursday there’s still a lot that goes on. When I was walking down the ward to M[]’s desk I glanced at a room for half a second and saw a male patient in the room (near M[]’s desk), but NO speech or interaction was made. Also, when I was walking towards the kitchen and I also glanced at a room and also saw a male patient for half a second glance, again, NO speech or interaction was made. The patient near M[]’s desk was in bed and the patient near the kitchen was sat on his chair. Like I said I only interacted with two FEMALE patients.14 Feb 2023 , 13:54 See security details Hi [RHP], this is everything now. On Thursday, opposite room 21 and 22 or 20 and 21. 1 saw the back of a FEMALE patient and I asked P[] (domestic cleaner) why she was dabbling her arm with a tissue as she had a little bit of blood on it. P[] said it's because of the treatment she's had. Regarding the accusations I don't know what else to say other than I didn't speak to any male patient, there was no interaction, I didn't go into a room with a male patient in it. I didn't serve drinks and biscuits. I certainly didn't do what I've been accused of. The room I went in was room 21 and 22 or 20 and 21, with two FEMALES, one had purple hair. I was leaning against the door whilst talking to them (females) and barely putting my feet in the room. Date: Fri,17 Feb 2023 , 12-04 Subject: Re: Investigation To: [RHP} Hi [RHP] did you receive my previous email? It's quite important that we know the exact details. Many thanks [DWH] On Wed,15 Feb 2023 , 18:55 [DWH] wrote: Hi [RHP], my parents and I are trying to get a solicitor together incase the police need a ; statement from me as well as an interview. For all that can you name the accusations word for word or specifically so that we know exactly what they are so it helps prepare me with the solicitor.”
“He is not so keen on going it to see the patients, even if the staff encourage him to do…”, ‘[DWH} isn’t very confident when speaking with paitnets and prefers not to as he is worried they will be made and tell him to go away” and “Not confident speaking to patients as unsure of their reaction”
“3.In September 2021 I began studying for my Level 3 Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care at [a] College (“the College”). As part of my placement, I volunteered with the [] Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) at [a] Hospital (“the Hospital”). I started volunteering on10 February 2022 . 4. The placement provided that I attend the College 3 days a week and volunteer at [the] Hospital for the other 2 days. 5. I started my role as a volunteer with the Trust by providing a meet and greet service before moving to the Ear Nose and Throat Department. I then moved on to the Oncology Day Care Department and subsequently Ward [A] (“the Ward”) which is an adult only ward. 6. At all times that I was volunteering with the Trust, I was supervised by [] RHP, the Voluntary Services Manager at the Hospital. 7. I enjoyed volunteering with the Trust and having the opportunity to work as a volunteer in the various different roles I was assigned to. My preferred work type was patient centred care work, and this was the role that I was fulfilling whilst working on the Ward. 8. When I turned up to volunteer on9 February 2023 , I made my way to the Ward. At that time, I had been assigned to work on the Ward for approximately 2 to 3 months. I arrived at the Ward just before 9am. 9. Before I entered the Ward I used the toilet just outside of the Ward entrance. After entering the Ward and before starting my jobs for the day, I made use of the toilet again. The second toilet I used is located on the Ward, just before reception on the left-hand side. 10. After using the toilet on the Ward, the first job I did was to check and restock the Danicentres. The Danicentres contain small, medium and large disposable gloves as well as disposable aprons and santry tissues. They are in frequent use and require regular checks and restocking. 11. The Housekeeper then asked me to put up some posters on the Ward’s communal notice board near the reception. The posters were informative posters about Health and Social Care which I stuck to the board with Blu-Tack. This job took quite a while to complete. 12. I then helped the kitchen staff to place cutlery into plastic sleeves so that the cutlery could be handed out to the patients with their lunchtime meals. 13. After this I ended up standing outside one of the patient’s rooms with 2 female patients and the Domestic Cleaner, engaging in general chit chat. I specifically recall doing so as I remember the Domestic Cleaner talking about cycling. Whilst I tend to talk less and listen more than others, I remember being engaged in this conversation. 14. Following this conversation, I was asked by the Housekeeper to take some used patient clothing to be cleaned. This involves taking used clothing that has been placed into plastic bags out of the Ward and putting them in the laundry trolleys. 15. It was whilst I was in the process of doing so, and before I had chance to leave the Ward, that I was approached by a senior nurse and asked to go to speak with RHP in her office. 16. I set the plastic bags of used clothes aside and proceed to RHP’s office. Due to the manner in with the senior nurse spoke to me and because I was being asked to go to RHP’s office during the middle of my shift, I immediately felt that something was wrong and became worried about why I had been asked to go to RHP’s office to speak with her. 17. I did not have a very good impression of RHP and believed her to be a fiery and authoritative person. Having spoken to other volunteers about RHP, there was a general consensus that she was not a particularly pleasant person to speak with. I became more nervous the more I thought about having to speak with her in her office, especially as I had not been told why she wanted to speak with me. 18. When I went into RHP’s office, her assistant was also in the room. RHP asked me to take off my face mask and sit down, which I did. 19. RHP informed me that an allegation of sexual assault had been made by a male patient. She asked if I had been in to any male patients’ rooms that morning and I told her that I had not. She asked if I had spoken with any male patients that morning and I said that I had not. 20. RHP then asked me something along the lines of “so you didn’t” whilst simultaneously making the gesture of lifting something up, which I assumed to be a bedsheet based on the male patient’s allegation of sexual assault. I immediately told her that I had not done so. 21. Whilst RHP was vague about the allegation that the male patient had made and did not provide any specific details, the fact she had mentioned that a male patient had made an allegation of sexual assault as well as making the gesture of lifting something up, which I believed was a reference to lifting up bed sheets, did provide me with enough of an understanding of the general nature of the allegation that the patient had made. I found this allegation very shocking and was particularly concerned that RHP was asking me about the allegation in a way that suggested she thought that it was me that had done so. 22. After denying the allegations in their entirety, RHP then asked me to account for my movements that morning, which I did and I refer back to paragraphs 8 to 16 of this Witness Statement, above. 23. RHP told me that I was being sent home and asked that when I get home, I send her an email providing a written account of my movements at the Hospital that morning. 24. At this stage I was very shook up. RHP must have noticed that I (quite understandably) looked very upset and distressed about the whole ordeal I had just been put through. I think in order to try and comfort me, she told me that they were going to investigate the matter and that as part of their investigations they were sending everyone home, not just me. 25. I believe she must have only been referring to all of the volunteers (not all the hospital staff) and based on my knowledge of the matter now, I believe that this was probably a lie and that, for whatever reason, and without any evidence, she had already decided the allegation was true and that it was about me. 26. I cannot recall the entirety of the conversation that took place, but I believe that I was in RHP’s office for approximately 10 minutes. 27. After my meeting with RHP I contacted my main course tutor at the College (“my Tutor”). Initially I sent my Tutor a message on Teams at 12.27pm and then telephoned and spoke with them at 12.28pm. 28. During my telephone call with my Tutor, I told them about the meeting I had had with RHP together with the allegation that had been made as I understood it from what RHP had said during the meeting. I told my Tutor that RHP thought it was me as, based on what she had said, that was what I believed at the time. 29. I told my Tutor that it wasn’t me and asked what was going to happen, but my Tutor was not able to offer me with any assistance. 30. I subsequently messaged [JR](a safeguarding member of the College at the time) to ask for updates on what was happening with the investigation. I was told very little about what was happening but was informed that I was suspended from College and could only attend the College for my exams if I was accompanied by a chaperone. 31. Other than my initial meeting with RHP, I was not involved in any part of the Trust’s investigation, and I was not invited to comment further on the allegations that had been made. 32. I was not invited to any disciplinary meetings and only became aware of what was happening when I received the Trust’s letter, which provided the outcome of their investigation..”
“Name of support in Trust: [RHP] Senior Lead Name: DWH Area volunteer’s: Ward [A] & Cancer Assessment Unit Date: 09.02.2023 Details of Concern and how it was raised: I received a phone call today at 10:50am from HB (charge nurse ward [A]) to say that one of the OT assistants had been with a patient who had told her that a young man in a blue t-shirt had entered his room and opened his pyjamas and tried to touch his genitals. As the patient asked him what he was doing there was a noise outside of the room and the young man left in a hurry. I asked HB to send [DWH] to my office where I explained to him that I would have to send him home due to an incident that had taken place at the [ward], I asked [DWH] on four separate occasions if he had spoken to or seen any male patients on his voluntary shift, to which the volunteer said that he hadn't, l asked him to go home and send me an e-mail account of all duties that he had carried out on his voluntary shift and not to return to the Trust until advised to do so. I met Ward [A] charge nurse HB at 3.30pm and we went to speak to the patient... The patient thanked me and said he hoped that the young man didn't get into any trouble but wasn't sure why he would want to look at his genitals, the patient had been spoken to on three separate occasions that day with regards to the same incident and on each occasion his version of events was the same. I stayed at the Trust until 20:30 to look at the CCTV with HB and the security team and the volunteer [DWH] did enter the patient's cubicle at 09:06am... [104] … Any other information... - [DWH] has been e-mailing the Trust VSM [Volunteer Services Manager ie. RHP] for information on the incident, [DWH] had told the college what the incident was himself, but no one from the Trust had told him why he had been sent home? ... 15 March 2023 VSM [ie. RHP] spoke to the volunteer [DWH] via telephone with regards to the allegations that had been made on the 9th of February, the first question that the volunteer asked VSM was is there any CCTV in the hospital and on the ward that I volunteer on VSM replied by saying yes there was CCTV in the hospital and on the ward that you volunteered on, volunteers reply was 'Oh Okay’, ... The volunteer [DWH] then replied 'What? You're saying I cannot volunteer just because of that?’,Il asked him what he meant by that? [DWH] replied by saying you know the allegation made against me your suspending me just because of that. VSM went on to say are you aware of the allegations to which [DWH] replied that he was. … [105]”
“SUMMARY / REMINDER OF INITIAL ALLEGATION... It is alleged that [DWH] entered [P’s] single bed cubicle and lifted the sheet and said he just needed to have a quick check, then proceeded to start to undo the buttons (press studs) on [P’s] pyjama bottoms. [P] challenged the reason and at that point a noise was heard near the cubicle door and [DWH] fled the room. [DWH] only touched the outside of the pyjama but the (sic) was disturbed by the noise. [P] is fully aware and has capacity and reported the incident to an occupational therapist on [Ward A] who alerted the Senior Sister. [P] gave a description that matched DWH including colour of uniform. [DWH] confirmed to ER College tutor that a SG referral had been placed against him and went onto describe the incident despite not been told about it... [99] EMPLOYERS / AGENCY INFORMATION... AL shared that the investigation is now concluded, and RHP has held meetings with staff members of the ward and witnesses present at the time. The outcome is that they believe that although there is no tangible evidence, they do believe that there is a probability of the allegation of happening. The thing that stands out is that [DWH] had shared all the details of the allegation without anybody sharing this directly with [DWH]. How would [DWH] know the details of the allegation unless the allegation was true... [RHP] found it strange that during a schedule phone conversation he did not say hello or anything else other than "is there CCTV in the hospital, is there CCTV on ward [A] and have you seen any footage of me on ward [A] at the hospital" all which RHP replied yes to. RHP stated he went quiet, RHP stated to [DWH] that a sexual allegation was made about him in the organisation which they need to investigate, and he responded by saying "so you have suspended me for that" RHP has always spoken to [DWH] with another member of staff present to ensure they are witness to the discussions. We do know that [DWH] had shared the allegation with numerous individuals at the college before he was made aware of the allegation. the information he shared at that time was a near perfect description of the allegation that [P] had made. This could be viewed as an unintentional admission of what happened in the room. Excerpts from these discussions are below: JD -"I spoke with [DWH] on Friday the 24th of February as he wanted to chat with someone about what was going on. He spoke about the incident and how it made him feel- like he was being blamed for something he hadn’t done. He then kept saying things like "unless I forgot about it or have dementia or something". Even though he has not been told about the allegations, he seemed to know what the allegations were. He said there were 3 allegations. He kept making hand gestures depicting masturbation." JR-13/02/23- I contacted [DWH] via telephone to advise him of the arrangements for accessing college during his exams and that he is not to be on site alone until the investigation is complete. [DWH] repeatedly asked what the Police will do and when/how they will contact him. [DWH] asked me if there were any details regarding the investigation/allegation that he should know about when questioned. [DWH] stated that he had told the NHS placement what had happened, describing going behind the curtain and lifting a sheet, and wasn't sure why the Police needed to be involved also. SN- A male patient at the hospital has made an allegation that [DWH] put his hand under his duvet, opened the poppers on his pyjamas and tried to touch his genitals. RHP says that [DWH] has not been informed about the nature of the allegation but has been asked to account for his whereabouts and if he had any interaction with any male patients. Apparently [DWH] has strongly stated on multiple occasions that he had no interaction with any male patients on that day. When the CCTV was checked it showed [DWH] going into the male patients cubicle. RHP has confirmed that [DWH] has not been made aware of the nature of the allegation, however [DWH] has told his tutor that he has been suspended for lifting a duvet and undressing a patient, and for being in the bathroom with a patient... RHP shared that...All the way through [P] has maintained his version of events and was consistent throughout but he did say he did not want to get the "lad in trouble." RHP shared that since the incident happened sadly [P] has passed away. [P’s] son has stated that they do not to pursue this for obvious reasons... [100-101] POLICE INFORMATION... The Officer in charge previously spoke with [P] regards to the allegation. [P] was stating that he was unsure as to whether he wanted to make a police complaint as he was happy for the trust to investigate the matter. The police then filed this matter given it was not supported by the victim. [P] was more concerned that this could have happened to someone before, and he did not want this to happen again.... [101] ONGOING / FUTURE SUITABILITY TO WORK / VOLUNTEER WITH CHILDREN: The trust will not allow [DWH] to return to volunteer given the allegations and the concerns that [DWH] was dishonest initially stating he did not enter the room where was staying. It was agreed by all that all the concerns around the allegation and the events left us to feel that [DWH] would not be suitable to work or volunteer in a setting whereas (sic) he may come into contact with children. WE also agreed that the concerns are so great that a DBS referral would be necessary for them to decide his suitability with both children and vulnerable adults [102] CHAIR’S SUMMARY After reviewing the trusts investigation which include numerous witness statements and CCTV footage, professionals felt that based on the balance of probability we believed that there is enough evidence to substantiate the allegation that [DWH] did enter room and something untoward had taken place. We have no concerns about the credibility of [P’s] allegation which he was consistent about throughout with various individuals and the police. We do know that [DWH] had shared the details of the allegation with numerous individuals from [ER] College before he was made aware of the allegation and indeed any details of the allegation. The information he shared at that time was a near perfect description of the allegation that had made. This could be viewed as an unintentional admission of what happened in the room given the full details he had shared. This also contributes [to] the decision of a substantiated outcome as saying this has fully confirmed what [P] had shared had happened. [102]”
“Whilst volunteering [DWH] has undertaken the following training modules:-... Safeguarding Adults Level 1 Safeguarding Children and Young People Level 1... [85] It is alleged that on the 9th of February 2023 [DWH] entered a single bedded cubicle on ward [A] whilst Volunteering, and lifted the sheet of a male patient and said he just needed to have a quick check, then proceeded to start to undo the buttons (press studs) on the patient’s pyjama bottoms. The patient challenged him and asked the reason for what he was doing, at that point a noise was heard near the cubicle door and he fled the room. He touched the outside of the pyjama bottoms of the patient but was disturbed by a noise outside of the cubicle. The patient was fully aware and had capacity and reported the incident to an occupational therapist on [Ward A] who alerted the Senior Sister. The patient gave a description that matched that of [DWH] and included the colour of uniform he was wearing. [DWH] confirmed to his [ER] College tutor that an incident had taken place whilst on his voluntary shift and went onto describe the incident despite not been told about it when he was asked to leave the Trust by the voluntary service manager. After concluding a trust investigation which includes numerous witness statements and CCTV footage, professionals felt that based on the balance of probability we believed that there is enough evidence to substantiate the allegation that [DWH] did enter a male patient’s room and something untoward did take place. We have no concerns about the credibility of the patient’s allegations which he was consistent about throughout with various individuals and the police.... [87]”
“Nurse on [Ward A] at [the Hospital]). It was alleged by HB that one of the Occupational Therapist Assistants had been with a patient who told her that a young man in a blue t-shirt had entered his room, opened his pyjamas and attempted to touch his genitals. It is noted that the patient asked the young man what he was doing and at this point there was a noise from outside of the room they were in and the young man is said to have left in a hurry. As a result of the allegations which had been disclosed, RHP met with DWH and advised she would need to send him home due to an incident which was alleged to have taken place at the [the Hospital]. RHP stated she had asked DWH on 4 separate occasions whether he had spoken to or seen any male patients on his voluntary shift, to which DWH advised he had not. DWH was instructed to go home and asked to e-mail an account of all duties he had carried out on his voluntary shift and not to return to the Trust until he was advised to do so (Flag 4). RHP advised she met with [Ward A] Charge Nurse HB at 3.30pm and they went together to speak to the patient who at the time had his son visiting. RHP advised she began with how sorry she was that something of this nature had occurred and that the Trust would deal with matters accordingly. It is noted that the patient expressed his thanks and also stated that he hoped the young man did not get into trouble but he wasn’t sure why he would want to look at his genitals. The patient is noted to have been spoken to on 3 separate occasions that day and his version of events was maintained throughout the conversations which took place. Additionally, RHP advised she and HB, along with the security team at the Trust, checked through the CCTV footage and noted that DWH was seen entering the room which the patient who made the allegation was in at 09:06am on the date in question (Flag 4). Additional information provided within the above document (Flag 4) advised that DWH was said to have disclosed information about the alleged incident to his college, however no one from the Trust had provided him with any details as to what the allegations were at this point in time. It is noted that contact was made with DWH on15 March 2023 via telephone during which DWH is said to have led with questioning as to whether CCTV was present within the hospital and on the ward which he volunteered on. DWH is said to have been advised that CCTV was present and is noted to have responded by saying “oh okay”
“As it is unclear what your motivation was the DBS has been unable to identify the driving factors behind it and therefore cannot be confident you would not repeat your behaviour in the future in respect of children. The DBS has arrived at a conclusion that you have acted in an opportunistic and exploitative manner with the intention of gaining some form of self-gratification. The DBS is of the belief that the evidence provided supports a finding that you would likely repeat the behaviours, should you be given the opportunity, in respect of children due to your apparent exploitative and opportunistic behaviours. As such, the DBS is satisfied that it is appropriate to include you on the Children’s Barred List.”
“Whilst the behaviour was not carried out in respect of children, it is considered that the role which you held would have allowed you to gain access to children.”
“We understand you have volunteered in a role considered to be “regulated activity” in relation to children and adults. This is as a result of volunteering within the [] Centre for Oncology… it is considered that the role which you held would have allowed you to gain access to children… TRA: Children Yes Hospital Volunteer.”