Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is Day 3 am, session 2 of Toshack v GeoAmey.

The earlier session can be found here along with all abbreviations etc.

The sound quality today is not ideal but we will persevere.

We resume at 11:20am.

We believe the next witness is Laura Laughland (LL).
Hoping sound quality will have improved.

We resume.
Oath taken
J - DH will ask you qu, then MM. Then I may too.

DH - details
LL - Laura catherine Laughland - PCO, for SPS
DH - at?
DH - HMP ??
LL - ***
LL - female wing (FW)

DH - from about 2021?
LL - yes
DH - not following case?
LL - no
DH - some evidence on SPS on TP prisoners. DUring time in DH (HMP) were you aware of any in F wing, who were TW?
LL - yes
DH - how many
LL - one at that time, since ther's been another and recently 1 again

DH - so 1 then 2 then 1
LL - yes
DH - you had regular contact with them?
LL - yes
DH - your duties involve search?
LL - yes, physical rub down or in cell body search
DH - like a patdown and other search more involved?
LL - yes, body search, we aske if they have anything harmful

LL - or not allowed, then search half body naked at a time, never fully naked
DH - who does it work
LL - males search males, female officers search females
DH - HMPDH, I assume you are F?
LL - yes
DH - so you would search HMPDH women?
LL - yes
DH - at HMPDH are TW treated dif>

LL - I was told when I arrived that TWAW and I was to search TW, there was one when I arrived.
DH - you were expected to search TW?
LL - yes, they were a long term prisoner, had to
DH - don't identify, but the crime?
LL - murder
DH - was there concern you would be searching

DH - that TW?
LL - yes spoke to manager October after SC ruling to say I wasn't comfortable searching TW.
DH - oct last year?
LL - yes
DH - has anything changed for you at HMPDH? was the body search expectation changed.
LL - yes, when I spoke to them they said i wasn't expected

LL - to spoke to residential manager, said I was expected to
DH - will come back to that. The expectation s changed?
LL - yes, i didn't have to search that prisoner
DH - did other members of senior staff raise that you raised it?
LL - someone asked if something had happened

LL - I said no it was me, going forward I wasn't comfortable.
DH - nobody at SPS said not acceptable?
LL - not at that time
DH - mention meeting with POA union and manager had you spokend to union before
LL - yes ***
DH - there was an expectaiton to search as if woman, changed

DH - after you raised it, exception made, did you discuss with union?
LL - didn't know I could, as far as I knew I could object
*** bad sound***
DH - what do you understand the impact of the local verbal agreement to be
LL - it's that local staff volunteer to search T prisoners

LL - but nobody had told me that was the case when I joined.

MM - morning. you ref your beliefs, what are they?
LL - m and m and women are w and you can't change sex or gender
MM - how longbelived
LL - always
MM - when you started working in prison
LL - 2021
MM - HMPDH?
LL - yes

MM - from time to time you searched the TP?
LL - yes
MM - treated as woman
LL - yes
MM - was your understanding you should
LL - yes
MM - pg99. SPS doc, policy on TP in custody, seen?
LL - yes
MM - broadly, search, PP everything TW will be treated as women by PCO
LL - yes

MM - contrary to your beliefs, but you did search that prisoner
LL - yes
MM - in the SC decision, you mention clarification and SSspaces. EQA case?
LL - yes
MM - handed down in April 25, did you hear about it?
LL - yes
MM - what was your understanding

LL - in SS spaces, it means sex not GI
MM - pleased?
LL - a relief
MM - 6 month gap till you raised it, said no issue with the TP, why did it take you 6 months to say something
LL - april 25 was long term sick, went back in June 25, a lot of talk about, we didn't know what SPS

LL - would do, waiting for clarification from ScotGov on SSspaces.
MM - what gave you clarity in Oct
LL - had waited quite a while, before SC couldn't raise SPS policy, didn't want to be seen as transphobic, but because SC ruling it aligned with my views but seemed law

MM - debate continues to rage, SSspaces aren't searches draw the line
LL - search is done in a SS environment, in the cell
MM - local agreement, union coming in next, you say agreement was between union and management, that's all you know?
LL - asked my MP, should there be more info

LL - he said everyone was in agreement and it was never written down.
MM - the shop steward ?? dod you know when agreement happened?
LL - couple of years before I arrived when T prisoner arrived. Before my time
MM - nobody mentioned it?
LL - no, no manager, not the intro I got

LL - said TWAW
MM - did you have any interaction with shop stewards?
LL - yes, yes
MM- on anygiven day in HMPDH, what's the capacity
LL - 53 female prisoners I think
MM - on a shift how many officers
LL - 4 and a manager
???
LL - yes
MM - do you know which managers agreed?

LL - no.
MM - no more

DH - pg606 email from you?
LL - yes
DH - to Mr Ly?? and devlin
LL - firstline manager and rep
???
DH - page 601, 10th oct, response within the hour, Mr L, ???? that's what you were told.
LL - yes

J - that's fine, you can leave. Mr Fearly (?)
DH - yes

DH - my last witness.
J - do we have any R witnesses?
MM - we have SH lined up for 1:30
J - think Mr F will be short, SH after lunch, running well ahead of time, maybe we can move to mysterious issue this afternoon?
DH - yes, though may be next week.

**We will use MF for Mr Fearly, if no first name is given.**

Affirms. checks social use.

DH - hello, name
MF - mark fairlie
DH - job
MF - prison office assn
DH - top of the tree
MF - lead scotland
DH - how long
MF - 6 years

DH - roles
MF - *lists senior prison roles* in Prison Officer Association
*very hard to hear*
DH - where based
MF - lanarkshire
DH - were a PCO yourself?
MF - yes from Jan 1980
DH - qu on POA involvement, on this policy, generally first, SPS policy doc for staff. One of many

DH - generally what would POA generally input to policy docs such as this issued by SPS
MF - docs are generally agreed between SPS, at the table earlier in process to put our views on what would be good policy.
DH - early stages, possibly later review? involved till issued?

MF - normally whole way through, not all ****
DH - POA will sign off policies it is involved in?
PF (PHIL FAIRLIE) - unions all come to table together and do it
DH - all policies
PH - no
DH - over the years in your experience, proportion signed off?
PH - when POA need to input on

PH - operational issues.
DH - policy which goes to management of TP in custody, dated Dec 2023, did POA have discussions on this one at input stage
PH - contributed to policy, had difficulty ...concerns from membership.... (SORRY hopeless sound)
DH - why was that
PH members raised concerns

PF - about searching, being asked to search TP prisoners, had to get to a position where we could resolve that
DH - dialogue with members, what were the concerns
PF - their own trauma history, concern about being in that position, intimate searches.
DH - input from members, other

DH - discussion in POA on this issue?
PF - took legal advice
DH - at officer level was it discussed on committee?
PF - we discussed what we were picking up from members, not just employed to do, but ideological concerns too. ???
DH - physical concern, female staff?
PF - y

DH - extract from a longer doc 671-2, see POA scot conference, how oftne a conference?
PF - yearly
DH - it's a report?
PF - yes ????
DH - highlighted extract, 672, part of report transcript of comments, on issue of searching T prisoners, particularly from union side
DH - who is JIm McKay?

PF -??? cross talk ??? POA scotland has national committee, UK one too.
DH - policy doc is a national one. evidence of incidents of local agreements. One site there's one on searching T prisoners. What's your understanding?
PF - no formal agreements, some cases local

PF - understanding, aware of Greenock and ??? picked up there were discussions when trying to agree policy. Where staff had concerns, it was agreed.
DH - you mention Greenock, aware of other informal agreements?
PF - thought it was informal, asked heard there were other examples

PF - wanted to be certain.
DH - you made enquiries? evidence is?
PF - did that because of anecdotes, because asked to come here, wanted to ask the qu.
DH - part of POA function is assisting members, in disciplinary for eg?
PF - yes
DH - any POA members disciplined by SPS for

DH - objection to searching T prisoners
PF - not that I'm aware.

MM - you were involved in early stages, but from feedback didn't sign off, does the POA not recognise it?
PF - no, SPS has right to do that, but union ?????
MM - you say there were belief issues among indiv

M and females health safety and dignity
PF - yes
MM - policy '23 no suggestion members shouldn't follow
PF - if there was difficulty see rep
MM - in respect of beliefs?????
PF - yes, in terms of policy
MM - there's no nation union policy?
PF - no
MM - local understanding

LOST A TWEET

MM - any discussion between SPS and union since FWS, SCS decsion?
???
MM - agreement in POlmont is around searching?
PF - yes

J - which other unions involved
PF - PCS and PGA
J - claim is a PCO employed by GA, are they eligible to join yours?
PF - yes

J - even if employed indirectly to transport
PF - yes
J - any re-examination?
DH - no

J - you can leave, we will break now and return after lunch. In terms of timetable, 3 hours?
MM - 2, or 2 1/2
DH - one from me?
J - OK don't want to go part heard over the wkend, back at half 1.

@threadreaderapp please unroll