Thread by @hannahsbee

THREAD: Day 2 - Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust Employment Tribunal

Technical problems but can now hear

Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) witness for SA

AS says he disagrees that he was ever encouraged to speak to SA

YG questions whether he was familiar with standard operating procedure. AS says he was

YG sets out list of safeguarding contacts contained in document. AS says this was never shared during his time in the service and was published a month after he left

YG suggests it’s an updated document

YG says he was perfectly capable to go to anyone with a safeguarding concern. AS says in practice he was actively discouraged from going to SA

YG cites documentation showing AS and colleague referred a case to SA. Suggests there was no difficulty in doing this. AS says he was away. YG says there appears to be no surprise from SA that she’s been contacted

AS says he can’t comment. His colleague made referral, not him. AS says there were times he wanted advice from someone more experienced than Garry Richardson (GR) - GIDS safeguarding lead

YG says AS did not make a complaint either about GR not being able to advise him adequately or that he was instructed not to go to SA

YG puts to him that it was not true that AS had these concerns and if he had he would have raised them at the time

AS: no problem at all with day to day supervision/line management from GR. just when it came to complex cases

YG says there was at least one example where SA was contacted.

AS says case being referred to was referred to SA by his colleague

YG says AS must have know GR was GIDS safeguarding lead from summer 2017. AS agrees. Says mistake is made in his statement but is checking

AS says it’s an error - should read 2017 GR given title of safeguarding lead at GIDS

YG says that’s an important error.

AS apologises for error

YG says that suggests there maybe other errors in his witness statement. Other explanation “you want to make it look like it’s all happening much later” and trying to ‘mislead’ the tribunal

AS says it’s an honest mistake. “I’ve raised the same safeguarding issues…in multiple fora in the trust…way before the claim from Miss Appleby”

YG quotes AS as saying he worked in other CAMHS settings. as: “safeguarding is safeguarding” whatever environment we are operating in

YG: you had responsibility if you were concerned to log an incident
AS: no. Would always check with a line manager before that. That’s best practice

YG: doesn’t seem to be any evidence of you logging an incident or escalating a case you didn’t think had been dealt with. Nothing ‘concrete’ to illustrate your worries.

AS: when it comes to clinical matters I think your wrong. Had sought consultation from Dr Rob Senior and safeguarding expertise in and outside the trust. I have escalated clinical matters on multiple times

AS: In 2017 I had two or three meetings with Gill Rusbridger - Speak up Champion - and shared them with Dr Sinha in 2019 too. On all these occasions I shared my concerns

AS says he had others too.

YG says that’s not in his witness statement. AS says meeting with GR and Dr Sinha are in statement. YG says will check.

As: with Gill is wasnt talking about SA but rather my safeguarding concerns and lack of safeguarding referrals from GIDS. At that point there was no clear direction from Polly (Carmichael) not to go to Sonia

YG: there’s no reference to that in your witness statement

AS: para 42 I’m talking about Gill Rusbridger

YG says implication Is that AS speaks to GIll Rusbridger in 2019. AS disagrees and says it shows that it was 2017

YG challenges AS that he claims things had been difficult for four years - back to 2015
AS: yes. Looking back it was ‘very challenging.’ Talking about risk related issues was v challenging. There was fear that it would be seen as transphobic and there was pressure from LGBT grps

Who wanted early medical intervention

AS said it had become political. Only later in 2018 were we told not to go to SA.

YG: from 2017 and GR being appointed GIDS safeguarding lead he was first point of call. AS agrees.

YG: can’t see that AS didn’t take any concerns to HR.
AS: “No. I did it directly with the medical director.”

Gill Rusbridger also advised me that a really good place to raise these concerns was in the review with the medical director.

YG: if it’s true - and I say it’s not - that these directives are being given you are not giving any opportunity for these concerns to be properly investigated through the proper channels.

AS disagrees. Says he was advised best place to raise concerns was in the review

YG says that is much later. Suggests he’s been talking to others who are dissatisfied for whatever reason.
AS disagrees. Says he’s also talking about clinicians still in the service

AS: recurring theme in his supervision with Garry Richardson was don’t go to social care because they won’t know what to do with cases involving gender identity

YG: your responsibility to refer anyway, as an experienced clinician.

AS: wasn’t experienced then, but Garry felt that social services wouldn’t know what to do. In my other jobs we would do this as standard practice
YG suggests it’s ‘completely untrue’ that GR would seek to dissuade from making a referral

AS confirms he was not managed by Polly Carmichael (PC). But says he did have formal one-to-one meetings with her on difficult cases and clinical matters. She had an ‘open door’ policy and would be available.

AS agrees that PC would be available and we were able to contact her

YG: seeks to confirm that PC was not final arbiter of complaints?
AS disagrees. PC would have final call on complaints and wishes to change clinicians or on requests for medical intervention.

YG suggests engagements with PC were not that frequent. AS says it was frequent. We would meet and greet almost every time we were both in. Discussions about clinical matters were not as frequent

YG suggests to AS that such knowledge he think he has only PC’s view of SA was garnered from other people - ‘hearsay’

AS: I’m referring to things I heard first hand and in the big team meeting with Polly

YG suggests he was often absent from team meetings

AS says not correct. Period he was working at other CAMHS service and was excused by Polly from one team meeting per month.
YG says various trust witnesses say you were more often than not on missing list, so you weren’t privy to what was said

As: even if I was absent at times, which is not my recollection, I’m talking about instances I was present and Polly was talking about Sonia directly

YG - if that were true, suggest you would have taken that to someone else to talk to. ‘You don’t seem backwards in coming forwards’

In late 2018 I did go to multiple fora and raised it when something was said about Sonia. Initially I discussed with colleagues in GIDS to clarify what we had all heard, and then I did raise it in appropriate channels

YG - there’s no evidence of you doing that. And going to put to you that PC never said to you don’t go to SA

AS: That’s wrong. I did take it to DR Sinha. I spoke to Gill Rusbridger who also confirmed that I was not only one who had gone to her and raised concerns about Polly and safeguarding. That was a ‘surprise’ to hear

YG suggests most of what AS is saying is based on third hand accounts.
AS says wrong. Most people worked part time. Inc PC. Important to say that things continued to escalate in terms of safeguarding even after review in Jan 2019, all the time until I left in October 2019

YG - you’ve said repeatedly that you’d go to Rob Senior
As - yes there was unwritten rule to go to RS if you needed to go outside GIDS with safeguarding issues, not Sonia

YG - wasn’t a rule it was just that he was deemed to have a good knowledge of the service

AS - I’m not sure

YG quotes from AS statement as saying discouraged to speak to the ‘safeguarding team’. YG suggests this is ‘manifestly wrong’ as could go to Rob Senior

YG quotes from AS witness statement saying there was caution about going to safeguarding team, especially Sonia
AS - PC clearly said “I don’t know what her (SA) deal is with GIDS” and what her agenda is with GIDS. Other senior team members nodded in agreement with polly

YG suggests this isn’t true

AS says this was related by Polly also in one to one conversations including to talking to me on my mobile phone. “She does not know what Sonia Appleby’s problem was with GIDS”. AS says Sonia had questioned why a case wasn’t referred. Para 26.

YG: that suggests you’ve done exactly what you’ve said you’re not allowed to do.
AS: that’s incorrect. Sonia was reviewing cases and enquiring why cases involving emotional abuse by mother and suspected FII had not been referred.

YG - you will heartfelt PC she was concerned about the case but not about SA’s involvement
AS - thats the first time I’ve heard this. From my experience PC did not seem concerned about the case.

* hear that* not ‘heartfelt’ - typo

AS: I disagree with what you are saying about Polly. “It’s not my recollection that Polly was concerned about this case.

YG suggests again that AS’s evidence is not based on first hand experience.
‘There are quite a number of layers’ and you don’t have direct knowledge of this
AS: I have direct experience “I was in the team meeting when Polly explicitly told us not to go to Sonia in late 2018”

AS says he’d never met Sonia and had only spoken to her on phone

YG suggests that AS was not present at December 2018 meeting and there was no instruction.
Says conversations with Polly didn’t happen.

YG - although we disagree about there being an agenda with Sonia appleby, as a senior clinician you should and could have gone to her at any time

AS - Polly didn’t clarify what she thought Sonia’s agenda was. So it did take me a few weeks to process that information and take it to Gill and Dr Sinha.

YG - I’m confused. You suggest you have excellent relationship w. PC, if true it’s very serious, and yet at no point do you say to PC I don’t know what you mean

AS - as a person I had no issue with Polly. These were clinical issues. But I already started feeling quite attacked by Polly because she said I was part of a ‘gang’ of clinicians and had spoke to David Bell and press. Yes, I didn’t consult her but the trust that we had had gone

YG - This is just untrue. There’s nothing in your statement that stays PC said these very troubling things to you. If it were true, you would have raised a formal complaint.

They’re not in my statement because I didn’t think they were relevant to SA’s claim. But I did raise them in other fora inc with Ailsa Swarbrick

AS - I didn’t raise a formal complaint but I did raise it with PC’s line manager and Paul Jenkins (Tavi CEO) and haven’t included in statement because didn’t think relevant to this case. I’ve experienced more

AS - I did not feel I had the power or ability to challenge her on personal matters, including matters of my identity. You’re right.

AS - things escalated much more in 2019

YG - you asked for a career break and it wasn’t in PC’s power to give

AS - no. She verbally agreed to it. But in meantime I kept being vocal on safeguarding and mismanagement in the service. A close colleague resigned and was also attacked as being part of a ‘gang.’ PC then came back and said I’m not going to give you a career break but…

You could resign and then reapply when you come back
YG - there was no connection between those things
AS - this was after my interview with Dr Sinha so wasn’t included

YG - as far as your departure was concerned, it was because you wanted a career break and other family concerns

AS - no it was connected to increasing hostility within the service. I was asked why am I still part of the service. “I found it quite unsafe to practice in a service where there is so much hostility and chaos.”

YG - despite you saying you’re concerned, none of these things are documented. This is merely your misunderstanding surrounding lines of reporting on safeguarding …

AS - the main issue is about what I heard PC say about SA. This isn’t about my personal matters with Polly

AS - I’d left the trust as a clinician but needed to process what had happened…I felt that because my safeguarding concerns hadn’t been taken seriously by anyone in the trust the very last thing i would do is to let Sonia know what had happened

YG - would suggest you reached out to her in quite an improper way but will come onto that. Looks at AS’s exit interview.

AS - this is only my exit interview, when I raised complaint about homophobic comments …

YG - you talk about being unable to switch off etc. That’s the nature of the job isn’t it?
AS - no. The issue was not with my cases but my personal experience
YG - you’re raising these v serious issues for first time in an employment tribunal
AS - no. There had been 4/5 …

Meetings with ailsa swarbrick about homophobic comments

YG suggests AS exit statement suggests he couldn’t keep up with the work
AS - no. There was a wait while my complaint about Polly’s comments were investigated
YG - my instructions are that you did not wish to raise a formal grievance
AS confirms this but says he was leaving

AS said he did love the service in many ways, but there were problems. I was supported in many ways. “I would have left much earlier if I didn’t like my work in GIDS…” but this doesn’t mean I wouldn’t report concerns

YG and AS discussing purpose of an exit interview

AS - at that point I had completely lost confidence in the trust as a whole and the processes. Explains he’d repeatedly raised concerns in multiple fora before hand.
YG suggests these concerns are not true otherwise they would have been in exit interview
AS disagrees

Felt privileged to have spoken to high powered people in the trust prior to this - CEO, and PC’s line managers - so could not see why to raise them again in exit interview when they had not been acted upon before…

“I thought I had already raised all the important things with really important people with high power.”

YG again suggests AS did not raise concerns. AS insists he’s talking about safeguarding issues and reported Sonia comments. “This is not a trial of my personal issues.”

AS says he had conveyed in the past: “This is really unethical. Really risky. And it should not be happening in any service, let alone all nationally funded service.”

AS says transcript of his interview in the bundle had not been sent to him for approval - as agreed - before publication of final GIDS review report so questions whether it was taken into account.

YG - do you not stand by the transcript then?

AS - I do mostly. But there are some small mistakes and one big mistake where it says I tried to downplay the significance of the review. That’s not the case - I said Polly downplayed the significance. So there are some inaccuracies.

YG - but you’re not taking great issues and don’t know what actions were taken after you left the service
AS - yes
YG - will you take it from me that there were quite significant actions taken after this
AS - can’t answer that question.

End of YG cross examination

PM SESSION
Former GIDS clinician Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) being questioned by Sonia by Sonia Appleby's counsel Anya Palmer (AP).
p239 bundle - AP addresses earlier issue about safeguarding SOP.

AS confirms he never saw this and it was written a month after he had left the service. AP points out that the version says it's 1.0. AS says to his recollection he was never given a specifically GIDS safeguarding document

p395 bundle - AP says this is where Garry Richardson agrees to take on role as link between GIDS and SA. Asks when AS first heard of GR being safeguarding 'lead' rather than a 'link'. AS doesn't recall.

In respect to allegations that PC said to not go to SA, it was suggested that if it were true he would have raised this formally. AP asks which channels he did raise it with?
AS says: Gills Rusbridger, Speak Up Champion, then Dr Sinha as part of Review, and then between Feb '19

and Sept '19 he met on multiple times with Ailsa Swarbrick and Paul Jenkins, CEO - four people who are all very senior in the Trust.

AS asked if he has any docs relating to these meetings. AS says he needs to check but cannot confirm straight away - would either be email correspondence or notes from meetings, made by Ailsa S

AS says he definitely does not have notes of meetings with Gill. Asked about meetings with Paul Jenkins, AS says this was mainly about issues raised with Ailsa - allegations that Polly C had made inappropriate comments about his Greek heritage...

and also comments he alleges were homophobic. He says other clinicians had similar concerns about this

AS says that Gill Rusbridger confirmed that others had raised concerns about safeguarding with her. He talked about the possibility of whistleblowing, but v soon after review was announced and that was seen as the best forum

AS felt that Ailsa understood what I was saying and that she was worried about things. There was a time where people had raised concerns about Polly's approach and she assured me she wanted to look into things. But at some point I felt exhausted and had to leave...

for personal reasons, not because of the work

AS mentions a document - not disclosed to the tribunal - in which AS claims Polly suggests he has 'an agenda' and SA has 'an agenda'.
EJG says the tribunal needs to see it.

AS will check to see if doc relates to personal matters only, or if SA is referred to

AP - on the issue of AS not raising issues in exit interview, she cites him talking about 'issues in the service', AS says he was talking about safeguarding issues and an instruction to talk less in meetings.

End of AS evidence

Dr David Bell is next witness.

DB describes his role as previous staff governor.

YG says role is elected but also there is meant to be impartial overview?

DB says if a matter comes to ones attention which one is concerned about because of the issues one has a duty to raise them

YG - but there is also a duty to the other parts of the trust too.

DB. Yes, one might. My position is that I was approached by a large number of people, 10, who brought v serious concerns to me betw feb ‘18 and august ‘18. I considered what best to do and I decided to write a report. I informed Ceo and Chair of this

YG - what you didn’t do was spend any time with anyone at GIDS to discuss this. You didn’t go to PC or sally HODGEs transparently to tell them what you’d heard. DB says he met with PC, SH and SA while the report was still forming in my mind. I asked for info from GIDS

On referrals, sex ratio etc and heard nothing. I got a letter from ceo saying that I should deal with him directly instead and not approach GIDS. He didn’t respond when i asked him to supply the data from GIDS

YG suggests again that DB did not inform PC or SH transparently that he had heard concerns. DB says he met with them both before writing the report

YG says he did not deal with PC transparently and When he asked for information on the service he did not say why. DB questions this and says he did say he was writing a report on GIDS.

YG discussing emails from May ‘18.

YG refers to data pulled together by SA. DB says impossible for him to check it because he could get no information out of GIDS.

YG referring to email exchange between SA and SH. Says it’s agreed work will be taken forward together.

YG questions why DB refers to consent for puberty blockers, whereas SA recalls discussion being more generally around consent. DB suggests YG seek confirmation from SA

YG says she doesn’t understand why DB took so long to talk to key personnel - PC and SH - and had begun investigating before doing so

“This seems rather upside down.” You’re conducting a data gathering exercise before going to the service lead and saying did you know these people are unhappy

DB - I didn’t feel it was upside down. I thought it important to take my time. One of the things that stood out was the ‘level of fear and intimidation’ - only one was prepared to meet me in my rooms. I was aware this was something v big and felt it important to get grips

With the issues before speaking to the leadership

DB - there were a number of things I asked for that were not on the website, and I was also surprised by the response i received when I asked for data.
YG - because you weren’t transparent no one knew what the purpose of your request was
DB-PJ didn’t say he wasn’t going to give

Me the information, he just didn’t respond

YG - you didn’t make plain the purpose of the exercise.

YG says that it was only later that DB explained he was compiling a report and “this was hardly transparent, Dr Bell.”

DB - “I thought it was sufficient at the time.” I mentioned Paul Jenkins and a report. Didn’t think appropriate to spell out the concerns. When I did meet PC and SH I was rather taken aback that PC seemed most concerned about finding out who had talked to me, rather than concerns

YG - what PC was taken aback about the fact that she was not given the information about the issues. DB insists PC kept talking about the people who came to talk to me. “Even v senior people were very anxious” and so I needed to act carefully

YG - that’s completely untrue. You didn’t act carefully when it came to SA. You lied about her involvement in your report. DB denies this. Says he did not give idea that she was contributor to the report. If I removed anything it was because it might be misinterpreted.

“That’s not the same as lying”

YG suggests that SA thought DB had suggested she had played a different role in the report than she had. DB - “I beg to differ.”

YG referencing report of independent investigation into SA’s claims. Suggests that some felt SA was a co author ofBell report when she was not

YG - you thought having her name on there was add some credibility didn’t you?

DB - I stand by what I said. I wrote that report. In no way was Sonia a cosignatory, an author, but she did give some help and advice along the way and on what to leave out etc some of which I agreed with, some I didn’t follow. It would be a misunderstanding to think

Her role was greater than that. It’s important to make a distinction between a misunderstanding and a lie and I say on oath that I did not lie.

DB clarifies again that she did not have a substantial role. If Sonia understood anything he wrote as implying that then he is is sorry, but that is a misunderstanding, not a lie.

DB confirms that Anastassis Spiliadis was not one of the 10 who raised their concerns with him.

Discussion about first time DB and AS met. AS raised the SA allegation with him. DB felt it his duty to raise it directly. Subsequently this was raised in transcripts and in a Newsnight programme

DB says that while he had not met AS before, it was in the context of having already heard many concerns about the service. I wrote to PJ to raise them to say I thought it was v serious. The other concern I raised was allegation of being put on puberty blockers after one session

And this not being recorded in the notes

YG - but again you’re taking these things at face value and without talking to Polly Carmichael or sally Hodges

DB - by that time I had received a great deal of intimidation and attempts to silence me by the trust. I was accused of bullying by Paul Jenkins and was instructed not to speak to Sonia. “I was ready coming under a great deal of threat and intimidation”

YG - it’s all other people and not the service leads

YG - you were also happy to work on basis of additional second hand accounts provided?
DB doesn’t think this is a fair reflection. It fitted into a pattern I was very very concerned about - that children weren’t being sufficiently looked after

DB says many of his concerns borne out in Judicial review - lack of data etc - and in CQC. And by earlier report written by david Taylor and by and external consultant. “There is a whole history of GIDS not taking things up”
(HB: These reports have been uncovered by NN)

YG - there is a range of views within this service. Need to manage this was because of level of hearsay. That’s why an independent review was commissioned

DB says he was told not to send his report to the governors. I took my own legal advice and was told not only could I send it, but that I had a duty to send it

Sinha review was nowhere near an adequate response and there should have been a fully independent, external review.

YG - Your report was shown to be unbalanced and partial and containing unsubstantiated comments and hearsay

DB says initially review had asked for nominations of people to come fwd. Gill Rusbridger agreed with me the basis of the review and that people should be able to speak anonymously

YG - the purpose of the review was to hear from all staff, with different view. It was a much faker approach and a more balanced report

DB says people only offered anonymity because of his intervention. YG suggests the opposite - that it put people off.

DB says you can have anonymity and still allow dissemination of those views. I managed to change details to protect people. The Sinha review could have done the same

DB confirms to judge that ‘threatening letter’ came from Paul Jenkins and it is not in the bundle.

EJG asks about discussion with Rusbridger and email sent to all GIDS staff and whether it’s in the bundle. DB says it was to ensure that staff would be granted anonymity if talking to review.

AP asks if DB can send this email to counsel and for some other correspondence too

End of DB's evidence

Hearing adjourned for the day.
Have tried to be as accurate as possible but there will inevitably have been typos along the way.