Thread by @hannahsbee

THREAD: DAY 5 – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, Tavi counsel
AP - Anya Palmer, SA counsel
EJG - employment judge Goodman

Questioning of SA by YG set to continue, but some technical difficulties at the mo…

YG - Meeting w Dr Sinha July 2019. You were expecting to meeting his to discuss voluntary redundancy?
SA - Yes
YG - ... even though your role wasn't redundancy, was it?

SA - no. my job wasn't redundant but i was responding to a previous scheme the trust had in place, but when i spoke to HR in June they advised the scheme was no longer in place but should talk to line manager..

SA says her impression was that it would be an informal 1 -2-1 meeting but it didn't turn out to be the case. Representative from HR was also there...

(Just lost a lot of tweets)

SA has said that it's quite understandable for a line manager to discuss any concerns raised, but it is not informal to have an HR representative present at a meeting and for it to be made clear that a note will be kept on her personal file.

YG refers to a letter (368) - it makes clear that it's an informal meeting, purpose to discuss an alleged comment to fellow staff members reported during GIDS review - referring to a 'Jimmy Savile situation.'

(Meeting adjourned for a short time to assist with some technical difficulties)

YG - Dr S sets out purpose of meeting, doesn't say he's conducted investigation and come up with findings does he?
SA says he infers findings in so far as he mentions 'how I should conduct myself in the future' and says staff in question felt v 'disaffected' ...

about the alleged comment. so in my mind he is providing a commentary

YG - throughout he always refers to these as 'alleged' comment and says you should 'continue' to be respectful

YG - Dr S is conducting himself as any reasonable manager wld
SA - no- don't think it was a reasonable meeting a) i wasn't aware of the incident b) Dr S had not investigated it at all

SA - i think that Dr S's behaviour was predicated by his report (GIDS review). he'd effectively outcomed the allegations as far back as March 2019, where he'd used the same language when talking about the central safeguarding team - and them being 'respectful

I'm inviting tribunal to take into consideration that there wasn't a proper process in relation to the meeting we had on 22nd July and that meeting was forecasted in Dr S's review document...

...It's v odd to infer that the central s/g team in particular hadn't been respectful to the GIDS team

YG suggests that SA does not raise these issues at the time, citing emails to a union rep

SA - the email to the union rep was directly related to events of 22nd. I wasn't putting any wider context. I was really upset by the meeting and mystified by why it had been advertised as an informal meeting, but outcomed as if it were the conclusion of a disciplinary process...

...and I was afforded none of the protocols for that... I didn't think the process was fit for purpose.

YG - It does not give even a hint of suggesting that Dr Sinha has behaved improperly in terms of claims being made in tribunal... there's nothing in here to suggest any ulterior motive on part of Dr S

SA - the email i wrote to the union was to express my concern about the meeting that had taken place... the answer to your question is that i was v concerned about Dr S's conduct

YG - where is your use of the grievance process or any other form of trust process
SA - i don't think i needed to make it any clearer to union rep that I was unhappy about the conduct of the meeting

YG says that it wasn't recorded as a formal grievance
SA says one of the reasons she bypassed that was that a) it was conducted in presence of HR and they said nothing

b) i wrote to Dr S the same day to say I was disheartened by the meeting and asking for the matter to be formally investigated. I received no response c) a week later I write again, copying in director of HR and similarly received no response

i was left thinking that "it doesn't matter what I do in this trust, I'm not going to be treated fairly."

YG suggests SA took legal action before matter could be dealt with in house

SA - i felt that the organisation had 'assaulted me' - it might be uncomfortable, it might be difficult, but someone in my position - Dr S putting those allegations to me without them being investigated and I was expected to accept them being put on my file...

YG interrupts - nowhere in the contemporaneous emails is there nay suggestion of an organisational assault.

SA - i may not have chronicled that in an email but my actions certainly conveyed that
YG - less than a month later there's a letter from your solicitors - letter before action (577)... Head of HR commissions an independent investigation

YG - Do you think you had invoked whistleblowing procedures policy? SA says if it's not in the letter then wld agree that she hadn't at this point

EJG seeking clarification on line of questioning. YG says SA should have raised a grievance

YG - investigation hadn't been concluded before you started proceedings in tribunal?
EJG intervenes again she doesn't understand line of questioning

YG says it suggests that SA wasn't willing to resolve matters internally. AP says SA does as much as she can using informal procedures before time obliges her to issue the formal claim

YG and SA discussing SA's relationship with Dr Sinha. SA says she didn't feel 'safe' having one-to-one meetings with him any longer

Tribunal hears that SA suggested that central s/g colleague should be present in meetings. SA: I wanted him to be sighted to the work I was doing, I just didn't want to be in a meeting with him on my own

YG - email 15th July 2020 between Dr Sinha and Mr de sousa (head of HR) - says he can't agree to staff not going to SA but that her colleague wld be used 'as a birdge'
SA says she had no idea what was going on until this was disclosed for tribunal proceedings.

Email refers to "a particular sensitivity surrounding Newsnight" which she had 'no involvement in whatsoever'
(This is NN broadcast from 18th June 2020, disclosing contents of some interviews from GIDS review, inc allegation that staff directed not to take s/g concerns to SA)

YG refers to Hodge report into SA's claims against trust and its conclusions (814)
SA confirms she did not produce a response to it

YG - one thing Mr Hodge finds is there's little evidence of a concerted effort to maginalise SA: "I do not agree with the idea that there is a concerted campaign of hostility against her either within GIDS or in the Trust more widely."

YG - Hodge also does not accept claim that GIDS staff "never refer issues to SA"

YG - you're still employed by the Trust ... and have continued to be named s/g lead with responsibility for children?
SA - that is correct
YG - job description hasn't changed and no tasks taken from you?
SA - officially my role remain the same

YG - And for GIDS, just like other services, you are the safeguarding lead?
SA - that is right
...
YG - there hasn't been a time where you raised concerns about being prevented from performing your role as s/g lead

SA - i think i did raise those concerns when I instructed my lawyer to write to the trust
YG - but your role hasn't been impinged. We saw that staff continued to bring cases to you

SA - what i've tried to convey is that it was my belief and it is still my belief that i was prevented from exercising my full functions, partic in relation to the gids service to being sighted about s/g concerns

YG suggests SA does not really think this otherwise she would have raised a formal grievance... when did you say that you were not being sighted to the s/g concerns in gids?

SA - I did not write a formal grievance. SA accepts that she helped write the standard operating procedure for the service.

YG says that SA did not raise the issue with Gill Rusbridger or Louise Lion.
SA - that is not true. I raised this with GR about the challenges I was experiencing with the trust and the GIDS service and she told me she was having difficulties too.

(correction: Louise Lyon)

SA - by summer 2019 'I had no faith the trust wld respond to me in a helpful way at all'
YG - was there ever a time when Ms Appleby complained about being left out of meeting or left out of decisions?

SA - i did write an email to dr sinha in feb 2020 when i was concerned about matters but i'm not certain that was an email about being left out but it was certainly an email of concern

YG questions when SA became aware of contents of transcripts which said that staff had been instructed not to go to her with s/g concerns. SA explains again she received them in Dec 2019, but could not read until early Jan 2020
END of questioning from YG

AP questioning SA now.

AP giving SA opportunity to add to a number of previous points.
SA clarifies answer from today on her role and says she doesn’t have much proximity to the strategic direction in managing improvement to the GIDS service.

SA says There were a number of areas that need improvement and I haven’t been updated in a way I thought I should have been
AP - you’ve refer to reduction in referrals to you in recent times and none from GR since 2018

SA - whatever MR R thinks of me personally, professionally I should be kept abreast of what is happening within the service. Mr colleague Dr McKenna has not kept me abreast either

AP - so are you doing the same job as before?
SA - it’s difficult to do my job … “if the trust allows for processes where I can be worked around”

END OF QUESTIONING OF SA

(Discussion now about whether any additional documentation can be added to the tribunal bundle)

LUNCH. Hearing resumes later with questioning of Tavistock medical director Dinesh Sinha

(Unlikely I am able to tweet this afternoon.)

(I’m listening to proceedings making contemporaneous written notes. Will write up this evening for this thread)

Day 5 cont…
Afternoon session begins with continued discussion about further disclosure.

The next witness is Dr Dinesh Sinha (DS), Medical Director of Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

DS amends his witness statement in relation to the review he undertook of GIDS: “The review did not identify any immediate issues in relation to patient safety, “however, however, the Report suggested a number of actions to provide a range of improvements
in the GIDS service."

AP goes through some charts showing the staff structure of the Tavistock
DS confirms he joined the Trust in Aug 2018 and was asked to carry out a review of GIDS in the first few weeks.

AP refers to DS's witness statement - "I was not familiar with the circumstances which had led up to it. I was asked to undertake the review precisely because I was new to the Trust and was therefore independent and objective...

..."However, I very quickly became aware that the internal review of GIDS was commissioned following concerns raised by a member of staff, Dr Bell"
AP - What was your impression of SA's involvement?

DS - My memory is that at that point I was very new to the organisation and unfamiliar with people. I was determined to clarify her involvement through conducting the review

AP refers DS to David Bell's report and suggests that in terms of SA's involvement he would have known immediately from 1st page that people had raised serious concerns with her and that she had met with Rob Senior; that she had circulated a list of these concerns etc

AP - it would have been clear to you that on the face of it SA's involvement would have been considerable. Do you agree?

DS - i heard lots of things from lots of people during the course of the review...
David Bell appears to claim so - it's his words - I haven't heard from SA at this point

AP refers to emails from October 2018 (479). SA has asked Garry Richardson for safeguarding data. SA is asked for more context by DS and she provides it in email to sally Hodges; he is copied in.
AP says it is a ‘perfectly reasonable response
DS - ‘that is her response’

EJG - what is your response?
DS - I said in my statement I didn’t fully understand what was being said

AP cites DS witness statement where he says that he would expect SA to discuss any substantive safeguarding project to him before proceeding. Asks whether he accepts that different manager have different styles and SA may not have done that with Rob Senior

DS - yes. And I have my own expectations and style, especially being new in the role
AP - had you communicated your expectations to SA?
DS - this was very early on and my response was part of trying to establish that.
EJG - Sonia your answer no?

AP suggests DS comes across with ‘some level of irritation’ -is that right?’
DS - remembering what I was feeling is hard 3 years on… I don’t see anything [in email] about being irritated

AP - sally Hodges replies to SA’s clarification with thanks. Would you accept her response is more civilised and pleasant than yours?
DS - I don’t agree mine was uncivilised. ‘Your choice of words is regrettable.’

AP - SA gives a sig amount of information to you and SH. Rather than take that on you later that day send her a ‘distinctly cool’ response saying she’s not responded and telling her to cancel her meeting with GIDS. You’re coming across as quite hostile aren’t you?

DS - not at all. I’m asking for a direct response. I’ve been copied into a response

AP - do you agree the subject matter (safeguarding) and how it’s recorded is serious?
DS - it’s a serious matter which is why I asked her (SA) to come and speak to me about it

*so is*

AP asks whether DS read document SA prepared before her GIDS review interview
DS - I read all documents that were provided to me
AP - did you read appendices?
DS - I read everything

AP says these included exit interview of Matt Bristow (former GIDS clinician). Asks if DS accepts this as a protected disclosure
DS - i do

AP - I put it to you that you were hostile to SA in her review meeting
DS - “I absolutely do not accept that”. I used the same framework throughout
AP - you’re aware she’s made protected disclosure?
DS - yes, after this point.

AP asks why DS asks if SA has had any more contact with David Bell. He says he was trying to get the chronology straight with everyone and he presumes that’s why it’s there.

AP suggest an example of DS’s hostility - saying he seems to be telling SA she’s using the wrong word. DS disagrees

AP turns to GIDS review interview with Dr Anna Hutchinson. Says one set of questions is about safeguarding

AP reads from AH transcript giving example where child was seeing Dr Webberly. ""One of our clients was seen by her, who had been given cross-sex hormones which our endocrinology team told us would
have stunted that person’s growth, it was damaging this child..."

"We had this big debate whether it was a safeguarding issue and I listened and then said that I think it is a safeguarding issue but it is not for me to judge, we need to refer to social services and they can judge... "

AH reports Polly Carmichael as saying no as she can understand why parents do this. AP says that AH is advocating referring to social services and that's the right approach, in't it?

DS - I don't disagree with what she's saying
AP - But the head of the service disagrees with that
DS seeks to clarify answer and says he 'certainly made a mental note' of what was being said

AP - did that translate into your findings in any way?
DS - i wasn't trying to speak of individual matters of concern in the review of the service. But wherever individual matters were brought up I did seek advice on how to take that further
DS refers AP to his witness statement

AP - You sought advice from HR?
DS - whenever more than one person raised concerns in a theme, I sought advice as appropriate

AP - Did you do anything about that allegation - that there is a particular child being damaged by stunted growth and PC did not want to refer it?
DS - i can't remember exact detail of that concern but when things came up thematically i took to HR

AP - this would not be a matter for HR. It's a safeguarding issue
DS - The problem here is what is being attributed to the head of service. And if that was a theme, I would have sought advice

AP - AH tells you "if you go to your supervisor, that is what you get, being told ‘why are you bringing complex cases,? maybe you should get another job?’ "... she's suggesting there is pressure about bringing safeguarding concerns
DS - She is

AP - What she says is since the review GIDS has started bringing safeguarding in house - "stopping taking cases to Sonia Appleby because they think she is ‘bad’, part of the review" - - she's precisely telling you that gids staff are not going to SA

DS - She's saying that. She's one person. I interviewed 31 people and overall I have to listen to everyone and look at the balance of probabilities.

AP refers to AH transcript again and says 'you're shutting her down there'
DS - Not at all
AP - you show a surprising lack of curiosity about safeguarding concerns

DS says it's the reverse of shutting down - I ask her more
AP - No. you say 'you don't know that'
DS - No. we continue to talk about it

DS repeats that where he had themes of individual concerns, or systemic problems he included them or sought advice.
AP - you're not suggesting are you that this is the only person raising taking safeguarding concerns to Polly?
DS - I cannot recall off the top of my head...

... I did also hear other views that people were offended by hearing children talked about in this way

AP now quotes from Anastassis Spiliadis' interview transcript: "there was a very clear message actually from senior management about being really cautious about how we talk to the safeguarding team at the Tavi and specifically Sonia Appleby."

She continues: "She [Polly Carmichael] thinks that Sonia Appleby has a very clear agenda about GIDS and she thinks we are not on top of the safeguarding concerns in GIDS ...

"there was a message actually towards the clinicians at least to people who are talking to Polly directly about having to be really cautious about how we talk to Sonia about safeguarding issues with cases"

AP - by this point, using your criterion, there's certainly a theme emerging...
DS - in those two transcripts, yes
AP - so i ask you again what did you do about this? How did you take it forward?

DS seeks advice from EJG about what he says are individual employee matters
EJG - Two individuals are telling you that there is some kind of practice of not taking cases outside GIDS. What did you do about it? It's a legitimate question

DS says systemic issues are reflected in his review which is v detailed. On individual matters he took advice from others
EJG - Who from?
DS - HR. And then it was progressed in the Andrew Hodge investigation (into SA's grievance - carried out from Nov 2019 and reported 2020)...

DS says it was not his role to address each individual concern, but to bring it to others
AP - who did you speak to in HR
DS - I can't remember

AP - This is a significant safeguarding issue and you say you can't remember
DS - I can't really remember. Presume it wld have been the HR director but can't find any notes

AP turns to the 'Jimmy Savile comment' made in DS's interview with GIDS safeguarding lead, Garry Richardson... He refers to SA's name being on the David Bell report and says he has a 'worry about how balanced
her advice would be.'

AP says SA is someone who's made protected disclosures now facing suspicion, to put it mildly, from someone she has to work with. Did that occur to you?
DS - No. I was hearing this as his experience

AP - it didn't strike you as unfair to Miss A that as a result of protected disclosures, people she works with view her with suspicion?...
Did you have concern for SA's rights as a whistleblower?
DS - at that point i wasn't thinking about her whistleblower status

AP - is there any other point in the report where you gave consideration to it?
DS - No. I was not concerned with individual issues
AP - Do you see nwo that SA was being regarded with suspicion by people she needed to work with?

DS says it wasn't systemic or organised.

AP says DS receives an allegation from Garry Richardson that SA has made a reference to Jimmy Savile when talking about gids. She then quotes GR elaborating on this:

"I think she saw the look of horror on my face and she very quickly said, I do not mean in terms of child abuse, but something in terms of your service being a something with the cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right."

AP - which is the more serious allegation Dr Sinha? That the service is a cash cow and the trust is turning a blind eye to something not right, or that Jimmy Savile is referred to?
DS - I think they're connected

AP puts to DS that when he spoke to her about this alleged comment at a later meeting in July 2019 he never asked about the other parts of the allegation - the 'Tavi turning a blind eye'
DS - I can confirm I didn't

AP - I suggest you didn't because this is not something that concerned you and you did this to punish the claimant for making protected disclosures
DS - I couldn't disagree more

AP - I put it to you that if you were genuinely concerned about the comment you would have asked about something even more 'colourful' - about GIDS being a 'cash cow
DS - I disagree

AP - It's clear that what allegedly upset GR was the cash cow comment and the turning a blind eye, not just the mention of Jimmy Savile...
DS says he thinks the two issues were connected by GR. "I don't see a separation"

AP says that GR is clearly raising suspicion about SA because she has raised concerns about safeguarding with the trust...
DS - Yes. He does appear uncomfortable about S's motivations.
AP - She's a whistle-blower and he's raising suspicions. That's another way of looking at it

DS - You have your interpretation. I have mine
AP - He's suggesting it's bad faith
DS - He is certainly expressing doubts
AP - About her faith
DS - About her motivations

AP - He's very clearly suggesting that she's not acting in good faith - that she's out to get the trust...
It's quite clear from his (GR) response that he's suggesting bad faith, isn't it?
DS - He's clearly saying he's unclear of her motivations

END OF DAY 5