Thread by @hannahsbee

Sonia Appleby’s employment tribunal against the Tavistock and Portman Trust begins today. Ms Appleby is the Trust’s Safeguarding Lead for Children. Details of her claim emerged after Newsnight reported staff at GIDS claimed they’d been discouraged from seeking her advice. ⬇️

https://twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1280885346658586626

Tribunal has begun.

Employment Judge Goodman (EJG) is presiding. Discussing now whether and what documents will be placed in the public domain.

Discussion about timetable for witnesses and which side will go first in the hearing. Yvette Genn (YG) is acting on behalf of the Tavistock. Anya Palmer (AP) acts on behalf of Sonia Appleby

Employment judge Goodman (EJG) suggests easier if claimant goes first

Unlikely evidence will start today because members of tribunal need time to read through bundle

Short pause while Sonia Appleby’s team discuss an application being considered.
EJG - employment judge Goodman
SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, counsel for Tavistock
AP - Anya Palmer, counsel for SA

AP - wants names of interview transcripts with Dr Sinha to be unredacted. (HB note: These are interview transcripts conducted as part of GIDS review in 2018/19)

AP says claimant in ‘invidious position’ having to guess who is talking about her.
Counsel want names of five managers unredacted along with one other.

AP unable to satisfy herself that everything ‘relevant’ in transcripts has been unredacted

AP: “There certainly looks like there is relevant information behind the redaction”

“We are not happy with the state Of the redactions.”

AP quotes from another transcript of interview with Tavi manager which says that there were “concerns” about claimant’s “approach” to GIDS cases. Transcript says “some may have felt it was a bit transphobic.” AP makes argument that SA’s team needs to know identity of manager

AP says that everything contained in transcripts is relevant to SA’s claim

SA’s ‘whistleblowing’ starts in 2017. Several protected disclosures take place in 2017 and 2018. Alleged detriments begin in 2018

Technical difficulties.

YG “takes great exception” to AP’s comments

YG says it was agreed on what basis transcripts would be used and which terms would be looked at eg
Claimants name, ‘safeguarding lead.’
This explains docs in the way you see them - the complaint that there are bits missing is because of the approach agreed, not Tavi action.

YG explains that anonymity of those who spoke to Dr Sinha as part of GIDS review were assured of anonymity

YG says ‘very dispiriting’ that nothing explained in application as to why certain interviewees should be disclosed. Stresses again the importance of anonymity.

YG says claimant hasn’t established ‘necessity’ to disclose

YG: “Risk of expanding out” to matters that are not of concern to this tribunal. May be other issues at the Trust, but the scope of the tribunal is pretty narrow. It’s about SA’s actions, not what anyone else may have disclosed.

“Claimant seeking to expand out huge numbers of people who were promised confidentiality…wholly wrong to suggest the trust has done anything underhand or mischievous…”

YG: “no good reason why these individuals should be identified or why there should be any further exploration into what they say.”

AP: press are entitled to see witness statements and anything referred to in those. Will take considerable amount of work to redact all names of those mentioned who are not witnesses

AP: a ‘minimalist approach’ to redaction should be taken

ETJ: no reason to anonymise witnesses.
Judge discussing how other people will be referred to.

Discussion between all parties on level of redaction to be used throughout proceedings.

EJG: not practical to undergo extensive redaction now, but tribunal will exercise caution in naming others in its judgement.

YG says that redacted parts of transcripts don’t contain the search terms agreed in previous order agreed by Judge Norris and are not to do with claimant’s concerns.

YG insists there is nothing else contained in documents that is relevant.
AP challenges disclosure made by respondent

EJG: unredacted statements of six Tavi employees mentioned to be sent confidentially to SA’s counsel. Does not imply anything wrong with disclosure but to ensure public confidence

Hearing adjourned until tomorrow morning.