Criminal record check did not spot hammer attack carer threat

The son of a 90-year-old woman who was stabbed in the neck by a carer with a previous assault conviction is calling for a change to criminal record checks.

Abosede Adeyinka hit Pamela Batten on the head with a hammer and stabbed her at her home in Hillingdon, west London.

Adeyinka was jailed for 21 years in November for attempted murder.

But Mrs Batten's son Sammy said the carer should never have been given a job because of her previous convictions.

Adeyinka, who had built a relationship with the victim after she cared for Mrs Batten's husband, let herself into the house in April before pushing the elderly grandmother to the floor.

The 52-year-old pulled a hammer from her handbag and fractured Mrs Batten's skull, then plunged a knife into her victim's neck, narrowly missing her spinal cord.

Mrs Batten has recovered well from most of her injuries, but her son said she is now very nervous and has lost the "happy-go-lucky" side of her personality.

But Mr Batten is "angry" and "astonished" Adeyinka was allowed to look after vulnerable people when her employers knew about her previous convictions for fraud and shoplifting.

It was revealed during the trial Adeyinka also had convictions for actual bodily harm and burglary.

Mr Batten said: "Everyone's got to have a job, but you can't put a fox in charge of the hen house.

"What's the point of vetting someone if you then ignore the results?"

A spokesman for Adeyinka's employer Avant Healthcare said the firm undertook a "robust" interviewing process, including thorough referencing and criminal checks.

Avant said it was not aware of the actual bodily harm conviction.

The spokesman added: "If Avant Healthcare had been aware of an assault conviction, Abosede Adeyinka would not have been employed."

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) said anyone employing people to work with vulnerable adults or children should request an enhanced DBS check.

It added convictions held by police will be revealed by the enhanced check, but that this is "subject to filtering arrangements".

The Home Office refused to comment.

Original Article




Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button