Thread by @hannahsbee

THREAD: DAY 6 – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

SA - Sonia Appleby
DS - Dr Dinesh Sinha, Tavistock Medical Director
YG - Yvette Genn, Tavi counsel
AP - Anya Palmer, SA counsel
EJG - employment judge Goodman

Questioning of DS by AP continues

AP refers DS to an email sent following his review email

AP - it's quite clear you cut hims off and move him on again. I'm going to suggest that you seem remarkably uncurious for some one charged with investigating safeguarding concerns in the trust. Do you agree?
DS. No I don't

AP - and now three people have raised the same concern with you about Polly Carmichael- Anna Hutchinson, Anastassis Spiliadis, who said the same thing that morning, and now Matt Bristow. It's surprising you didn't recognise it

Yesterday you said that you raised the issues with HR and then referred to the Hodge report
DS - that is my understanding
AP - i was hoping you cld give me more than your understanding because you were responsible for it

(I'm typing in word to make sure it's legible... will post when ready. Going too fast for me to type without typos)

(Going back to v start of proceedings today - DS wants to say that throughout the GIDS review he assumed everyone speaking in good faith.

AP refers to email from DS to SA after her review meeting and suggests he was 'drawing up the drawbridge' and wanted s/g to be 'data blind' to GIDS
DS - NO. I disagree.
AP - you were impeding her role
DS - i respectfully disagree

AP take DS to Dr Matt Bristow's review interview (1477) he tells DS of reports that gids staff told not to go to SA: "Whilst I remember actually I have something on my mind this is second hand, but I found it incredibly concerning and want to raise it because it happened...

"I was speaking to a friend a few weeks ago who still works in team and they told me that in the recent team meeting Polly had told the entire team not to go Sonia Appleby with any safeguarding issues
and to only every go to Gary Richardson..

"and to keep all safeguarding issues within the
service and not take them into the wider Trust."
AP - Your response is 'i'll come back to it'. That's somewhat surprising - it's a serious allegation

DS - it's not surprising as I was following lines of questioning... i do come back to it later on
AP suggests that to the extent he comes back to it at all, it is only to close it down and move on again.
DS - No. I'm making notes of concerns made

AP - i'm going to suggest that you couldn't have followed up by referring to the Hodge report. You completed the report and action plan in march 2019. The hodge report process only began in November 2019, in response to SA's legal claim.

You could not have known in March that she was going to bring that claim.
DS - You're right... but many of the things I flagged up did not result in immediate action. there was a long timeline, so i don't agree with your interpretation

AP - you weren't going to do anything at all about these allegations were you/ And yet you can recall precisely the two members you spoke to about the Jimmy Savile allegations.
DS - said i thought it was the HR director
AP - that's speculation isn't it? you have no recollection

DS - i haven't looked into it in the same amount of detail as SA's cases

AP - 1487 - Points towards Sinha's gids review. Suggests he's asked to find out whether "Appropriate safeguarding practices and procedures are being applied to children being seen within the service" and...

"There is evidence that the senior staff employed within GIDS have been aware of the concerns raised and:
- Ignored them; and / or
- Attempted to silence those that have raised the concerns."

An allegation that Polly Carmichael guided staff not to seek advice from central s/g falls squarely in your remit doesn't it?
DS - Yes
AP takes DS to his findings. You've had three people tell you that PC has instructed staff not to take safeguarding concerns to SA...

DS - I spoke to 31 people. These are 3 people. I had to weigh up the balance of probabilities.
AP - you've accepted this falls within your terms of reference, so we'd expect to see your findings on that?

DS - No. I've said when there were individual concerns they were taken further, but there were also those who spoke favourably of the GIDS director

AP - But I'm questioning your approach These three people are all making the same allegations; it's serious; it's about the director of GIDS; and it has ramifications for other people; even if you did take it to HR that's not an appropriate way of dealing with is it?

DS - i don't agree. Because there was such a plurality of views in the 31 interviews, in writing the report i had to give a fairly balanced perspective where i was confident of the issues i found...

...the other thing i found was that even where those individuals raised those concerns, i was seeing whether their actions were actually impeded. and actually they were all still seeking advice from central safeguarding. So I cannot deal with it as a systemic issue.

AP - you cannot seriously suggest you deal with this kind of issue with 'counting heads.' eg if three people say they're being racially harassed...you wouldn’t' conclude that because others didn't report that they these three hadn't.

DS - as part of the review i was not trying to address individual matters, I took advice from HR. i think we're going to have to agree to disagree

AP - it's not an individual matter. if it's true that the director of gids is telling people not to take s/g issues to the s/g team, that's not an individual matter, it's a team matter.
DS - I have nothing to add

AP - i'm not sure we see that they were still seeking advice...but point is this shouldn’t be happening. Even if they knew better, others might not...
DS - i'm not going to change my answer... i raised individual concerns and that is what happened in the case of Polly Carmichael

AP points towards findings - suggests there are no findings about allegation that PC tells staff not to take cases to S/G
DS - as i say individual concerns were not specified in the findings … I did not mention that specific allegation ...

but I did talk about cultural issues in the service and broader concerns.
AP – you do ask a question that’s pertinent at 1501:“I asked interviewees several questions around safety and adequacy of the procedures in the management of risk...

"I also asked them, if they were aware of incidents and complaints to do with the management of referrals within the service”.
That could touch on safeguarding. But an uniformed reader would take from your reader that you didn’t find anything worrying wouldn’t they?

DS – I don’t think so…. Actually I find lots of areas of concerns and my action plan was to deal with those… I was not giving a clean bill of health to the service

AP – well that’s how it comes across – you receive the same serious allegation about the director of the service and you don’t mention it – that’s exactly what it does look like – ‘a clean up report’

AP quotes further - 1502 "As stated previously, there was a persistent theme of reported difficulties in internal communication that made concerns from clinicians more difficult to manage and seemed connected with perceptions about the leadership”...

AP - if anything that suggests that you saw concerns from AH, AS, MB as a management issue that needed to be contained rather than a s/g issue that needed to be addressed

DS – no I found various places where there needed to be improved, and that included with the management of risk and safeguarding… and I point out that SA never came to me and said people were not bringing cases to her

AP – she wasn’t aware of it at the time, that’s precisely why when you receive this information from three different people you should have addressed it
DS – SA said last week she had concerns much earlier… So I don’t agree with you

AP – YOU say “The recent appointment of a safeguarding lead for the service has been a significant step forward and it is important that the continuing enhancements in safeguarding framework within the
service are accompanied by...

"respectful support from central safeguarding resources.” Safeguarding lead was GR?
DS – that’s my understanding
AP – you’re saying SA should not step on GR’s toes aren’t you?

DS – No. I think there’s a lot that individual people have read into the review report and thought it applies to them – it does not.
AP – the clear implication is that SA has been disrespectful in the past
DS – I disagree
AP – And not surprising she took offence

AP moves to SA disciplinary proceedings. You speak to HR colleague for advice on how to deal with alleged comments made by SA? Asks when was this?
DS does not recollect but says these were face to face meetings.

DS says colleague is on maternity leave and hasn’t asked her if she may have any notes of those conversations.
AP suggests that having representative of HR present indicates that this was not an informal process

DS – my experience was often what SA had memorialised was not how I had recollected the discussions and conclusions were not what I had believed…
AP – It’s always open to you to respond with a clarification as to what is wrong
DS – it was perfectly reasonable to have HR there

AP – I’m saying it’s perfectly reasonable to SA to memorialise meetings, and then reasonable for you to respond?
DS – No, I consider that fairly laborious
AP – why have notes of this discussion, with HR present, not been disclosed?

DS – says he doesn’t know what happened to those notes
AP – so what’s your recollection?
DS – that i drafted a letter using the information that was available
AP – does that include the notes?
DS – I can’t remember

AP – is it actually the case that HR drafted the letter and you signed off on it
DS – no.
AP – you didn’t think it fair to warn the claimant that the meeting was to discuss an alleged complaint?

DS – I did say it would be an informal meeting with HR there, but at the beginning of the meeting I did give her a chance to withdraw or continue
AP – the question is didn’t you think it was fair to warn her that this was to discuss an allegation against her

DS – no. that was the purpose of the meeting to explore the allegation, rather than an investigation into it
AP – you decided to have an HR colleague to help you not be misrepresented, but you didn’t give her the opportunity to have a colleague to help her?

DS – my recollection is that the member of HR was for both our benefit…
AP – quite clear from SA’s view that to turn up to a meeting to find HR when she wasn’t expecting it
DS – yes, she was shocked by it. But I was surprised by that because it was in an email

Ap – that email was withdrawn
DS – yes. But I was surprised to see that.
DS says he might have asked his PA in person to cancel the meeting, but he’s unsure

AP moves to the meeting itself. Suggests it’s understandable that SA wouldn’t want to ‘prolong the agony’ by putting the meeting back
DS – says he can’t comment on others’ feeling two and a half years on

AP – SA says “Dr Sinha proceeded to tell me that somebody had told him during the review that clinicians were concerned I was discussing Jimmy Savile and linking that to the GIDS service.” Is that right?

DS wants to check what he said in his witness statement. Agrees it closely matches.
AP – I’m puzzled – when did you produce this witness statement?
DS – it’s been in production at various stages even from last year – since November 2020

AP – and this is a meeting in July 2019, so how did you produce the witness statement, if not from your personal recollection?
DS – I haven’t said I don’t remember it, I’m trying to be as accurate as possible

AP – do you remember her saying she refuted linking JS to the gids service?
DS – I do
AP says SA said she mentions JS in training in a different context … Kirsty Entwistle says she attended training given by SA in march 2018 – and has provided notes of that training...

Asks DS whether he agrees that there is nothing wrong with this formulation
DS – Not at all. But my understanding of these particular comments is that it had nothing to do with training but in relation to GIDS. And you’ll be speaking to Garry Richardson about that

AP – and there is another person you spoke to who says this (1321) – we don’t see you ask any follow up question to get additional information/context.
DS – again – I saw this as an individual matter

AP – but you say you know this didn’t appear in training context, but you didn’t ask any questions about it
DS – no, I referred to GR’s statement.
SA – and you’ll be aware that SA refutes his allegation entirely.

DS – yes
AP – And you don’t ask why he hasn’t raised this before? (1393)
DS explains that he was ‘repeatedly told’ by two HR officials that GR comment in review wasn’t sufficient for a formal investigation
Ap – you didn’t ask him when this conversation took place?
DS – NO

AP – because if you had and found it many many months ago you might have asked why he didn’t raise it before
DS – I assumed everyone speaking to the review was doing so in good faith

AP – SA statement (p57WB) – “I asked him whether he had spoken directly to the person who had allegedly expressed these concerns and he said: “no”.
DS – I cannot agree with that.

AP quotes SA’s statement – “He told me that what he was planning to do was put a letter on my
file and he wanted to know what I thought about it. I told him that I thought that he was wrong
to effectively outcome the matter before investigating it.”
DS – I don’t agree with that.

DS says he did say he would put a letter on file – and it was HR that actually said that
AP – SA says HR didn’t speak a word…
DS – I don’t remember SA’s exact form of words, but I do remember her being unhappy that a letter was going on file

AP – you know what it means to put on a letter on someone’s file
DS – in this context it’s fairly standard practice to put an informal letter on someone’s file
AP – claimant says to you - “are you saying to me, that I had said that the GIDS service is akin to a
paedophile?”

DS – I absolutely don’t remember that.
AP – (p368) – do you agree with SA’s judgement?
DS – I agree that I asked her to be mindful about language

AP – SA says “It is absolutely necessary for me to talk about Jimmy Savile within the context of managing allegations about individuals who perpetrate physically, sexual and emotional abuse against children and adults.”
Do you accept that?

DS – I have no objection to her talking about JS in the context of training and it is entirely appropriate…
DS says in the context GR suggests it was not appropriate

AP – you accept that the context was a conversation about safeguarding… are you seriously suggesting that the s/g lead for the trust is allowed to talk about JS in the context of training, but it’s inappropriate to talk about it ...

...outside of training, even in conversation with GIDS’ s/g link or lead, who is a senior social worker, in a conversation about safeguarding
DS – If you look at what GR said, I did not think it appropriate

AP – I put to you her assertion that it’s absolutely nec to talk about JS in training… I said are you suggesting she shouldn’t talk about it outside of training. You said GR describes a context outside training… (repeats her questioning)

DS – I’ll clarify – what was being reported by GR – I’m not picking up context of conversation, I’m picking up content of the comment -and that is why I sought advice on that

AP… so you accept it doesn’t have to be in the context of training to talk about JS
DS – Yes

AP (DS statement 157 WB) talking about political context and divisions in gids team… yet you seem to take the allegation at face value, even though GR at same time suggests she in acting in bad faith and has ulterior motives

DS – I completely disagree. This was not the most adverse consequence, there could have been a formal investigation - and in other examples I’ve given you in one case there was a formal investigation

Ap – There couldn’t have been a formal investigation because you were repeatedly advised against it by HR – but that’s what you wanted to happen
DS – No.

AP suggests it’s completely different to take a note of the meeting versus a formal letter jointly drafted by HR to sit on a person’s file.
AP reads from letter a warning that SA not cause offence to any colleagues…
DS – I’m not warning her, I’m advising her

AP – you refer to a duty of care to address the JS allegation – to whom is that to?
DS – to safeguarding, where I felt there was risk if people couldn’t work well together
AP – What about your duty of care to SA where she’s warned about something she says she didn’t do

DS disagrees with word ‘warn’… I want there to be supportive, respectful relationships – that’s what I want to make clear
AP – but you don’t give SA the benefit of the doubt or treat her respectfully
DS – I disagree… I could have insisted on a formal investigation

AP – you wld have been insisting against two HR advisers
In final para you warn her that if there are further reports you might have to investigate formally?
DS – it’s my choice of words, nothing more sinister than that

AP – if you’d genuinely been accepting SA’s word, you would have used the word ‘allegation’ not ‘report’
…put to you if you’d actually gone through an investigation process, she wld have had a right of appeal wouldn’t she and letter wld stay for 12 months?

DS – I believe there is a process.
AP – but with your process she gets a warning from you, a letter on her file indefinitely, and no right of appeal
DS – this is not a warning letter. I agree the letter lies on her file
AP- indefinitely?

DS – as a record of an informal meeting, yes. Not as a warning
DS concedes there’s no right of appeal
AP – it’s definitely a detriment to her isn’t it
DS – I don’t agree

AP refers to Hodge Report into SA’s claims – p832 – notes of his interview with DS; cites ref to Bell report and you seem to be saying that was written with a lot of input from SA.

DS – no. I wld say that in either version, that was my understanding there was input from Sonia… I don’t remember my exact words – that there was ‘a lot’ or not
EJG – do you think AH has got that right?

DS – I don’t think so. My coming away with interview with SA was that she did not want continuing involvement with DB report.

AP – did you say SA ‘back pedalled’?
DS – No those are AH’s words
AP puts that the note implies that DS believed SA did co-author report/regarded her as suspicious
DS – No. SA was v clear that she was not at all a co-author, so I didn’t think she was.

AP (832) – refers to “just marking her card” when talking about meeting with SA about JS
DS – That is not a phrase I would use
AP – because you’ll know that is not a neutral act…it’s implying you’ve noted what they’ve done and you’re watching them
DS – I have nothing else to say

AP – you wanted her to be unsettled by this didn’t you
DS – I completely disagree
AP – and the reason was for her protected disclosures and her involvement with the Bell Report
DS – I respectfully disagree

QUESTIONS FROM EJG...
EJG – you say you found SA argumentative and difficult to manage – on what did you base that opinion?

DS – in terms of trying to set tasks in s/g; IT felt hard to have straightforward conversations ‘she wld simply end up arguing about everything’. I don’t have specific egs– just getting a bit of a commentary from her on straightforward tasks. ‘it felt v difficult with Miss A’

‘It was a constant pushback to my seeking assurances from her… what she was planning in the coming period’ etc
EJG – can you give an eg of an operational task where you wanted assurance and she blanked you

DS – Eg the audits are an operational task; I don’t remember the exact details, but that’s an example.
EJG – 1507 par 61 – you said in your review – “it is
important that the continuing enhancements in safeguarding framework within the service are ...

"accompanied by respectful support from central safeguarding resources.” The implication is that support had not always been respectful?
DS – throughout the review I was aware of a breakdown in the relationship between central s/g and GIDS ...

DS- I was trying to reframe that; it is not pointed at an individual. SA is not the only member of that team.
EJG – that sounds like to me that GIDS did have good relationship with central team because they were using their time?

DS – I didn’t hear it that way. There were concerns about not going to s/g; concerns about the Bell report; concern that people were raising s/g issues simply because families bringing children to gids. There was a
‘general lack of trust within safeguarding across the piece’

EJG – were you suggesting that the support was disrespectful or not respectful?
DS says he heard a picture of quite a lot of suspicion and mistrust
EJG – did you have in mind what GR had said about the claimant and JS?

DS – Clearly that was one of the concerns that was brought up… it was part of what I was worried about it
EJG – so from what you heard, the claimant had an attitude about what gids did
DS – I heard certain members of staff expressing that concern… even beyond the JS allegation

EJG – you didn’t tell SA that allegation came from GR
DS – yes – to preserve anonymity
EJG – what did you want to achieve from your meeting with SA in July 2019?
DS – in broad terms, to draw a line under the issue and move on

EJG – so matter you saw was lack of trust between claimant and GR?
DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service
EJG – important it was GR because he was the s/g lead and needed a good working relationship with the claimant
DS – Yes

EJG – So instead of talking about the remark itself, couldn’t you have said I’ve heard you and GR may have some issues, perhaps we need to build some bridges?

DS – I cld have, but thought if I didn’t say exactly what the concerns were it wouldn’t work(?), but also had advice from HR

EJG – so started out with learning that GR had a problem with SA, but nothing was going to change because SA didn’t know GR had a problem with her

DS – It wasn’t just GR. Other staff were weary about what was reported to have been said. I wanted to make SA aware but also not to take it forward in a formal manner. I was trying to get people to move on

EJG – we don’t know who that other person was, but one might think the relationship betw SA and GR was important. Are you saying that SA knew the relationship were difficult?
DS – I don’t know…. Until we received letter of claim we did not know SA was having any difficulties

EJG – it seems the claimant didn’t know GR had a problem with her, but you did, so one way of taking it forward was to establish with the claimant that she and GR needed to build some bridges… something like that

DS – I was trying to get service safeguarding leads to come together with the central team in a forum.

YG seeking clarification on a few issues raised in DS’s evidence this morning.

END OF DR SINHA'S EVIDENCE
LUNCH

Next witness is GIDS director Dr Polly Carmichael (PC)

PC makes a couple of amendments to witness statement (130 W)
- p132 10b - typo it’s the young person ‘will be referred’ not ‘to’
- 10d replace experts with clinicians
P136 par 22 - could I add ‘and named Dr’ re Rob Senior and please delete ‘Caroline McKenna…’

P136, 22 - not divisional, but directorate
P139, par 34 - it says 1970s: change to 1980s
P140 par 45 - change to ‘it has been suggested that’ rather than ‘it is noted’

AP - par 20 - wld you agree that only recently the central S-g team have been referred to that way?
PC - don’t know … Would see the trust safeguarding team and central safeguarding team as the same thing

Ap - p398 SB - GIDS board paper July 2018 - on 402 you say we’ve completed a review of how safeguarding concerns are documented… appointed a team safeguarding lead who will liaise with the central team; suggests you’ve just appointed GR as lead

PC - I understand that a big distinction is being made between link and lead. In GIDS itself he became the safeguarding lead on the ground. There wasn’t a specific date that he became it. Sorry that’s not more concrete but that’s my reality
Ap - that’s fine

395 - email from PC saying she will identify someone as a link. Pc - don’t know where word comes from but intention is to improve communication betw GIDS and trust safeguarding team

Ap - 249 - GIDS organisational chart. GR there - and he’s a senior?
PC - yes one of the management team. Pc confirms that exec sits above that

PC says nothing was put in writing about GR’s role. It was about communication and having a named individual in the team. And it evolved from there
… I was aware of the want to have other leads in other services but there wasn’t a job description at the time

AP takes PC through SA’s job description. Then GR’s - ‘GIDS specialises social worker’. Wld you agree there’s nothing here about safeguarding specialities?

PC - I agree there’s nothing specifically about taking the role of S/g lead but thing lay in it like taking supervision that would relate to that type of role.

AP - so was primary requirement someone who sat inside GIDS, rather than a specific safeguarding professional

Pc - it’s not as simple as that… clinicians have previous experiences, so when I’m looking for individuals their background experience is highly relevant and this was someone who had extensive experience in his previous posts

Ap suggests that GR doesn’t become lead until august 2018. Safeguarding procedure of Nov ‘17 (SB 261) does not mention other safeguarding staff outside of named professionals.

(303) April 2020 - on this occasion we see that primary responsibility still lies with names professionals but among new people mentioned are service line safeguarding leads inc GIDS. So follows that change occurred between the two

Pc - from these documents, yes. But it’s nominal from my perspective. It was official in the service before that. It was a service role in terms of being safeguarding lead for the GIDS, and not a trust role

Ap - and it’s important to you that it’s a service role, not a trust one
Pc - I don’t understand. It in no way undermines any of the trust roles. It was there for a specific purpose to improve communication - as we know

I think you’re dating things based on documents… that role developed. We used the words safeguarding lead in GIDS to describe the link role

Ap - wld you agree that someone can agree to something at the time without knowing how it would turn out. SA might not have agreed to accept the role if she’d known further down the line people wld be told not to go to her

Pc - don’t agree people were told not to go to her. The role was always going to be an evolving one. I don’t agree with that question really

Ap - 56 (Tavi’s defence) - suggests to pc that link and lead were very different things. Would you accept that

Pc - in order to act as a voice for the service you need to have a position as a lead. I do genuinely think the two terms are used interchangeably.

Ap - am I right in thinking that GIDS was first service to have its own safeguarding lead
Pc - I can’t accurately answer that
Ap - but you say he was appointed link/lead because you wanted in house lead and policy followed from that

Pc - it wasn’t that I wanted it, it was discussed with medical director and others

Ap - 1452 Anastassis Spiliadis transcript he says people were not encouraged to go outside the GIDS team. He’s referring to the GIDS lead not being in place until sept 2018…

he then goes on to say that up until then there was a clear message from senior management t about being cautious about how we speak to the central safeguarding team at the Tavi, specifically SA. That’s right isn’t it?

Pc - No. clearly incorrect about the timing of the role. And doubly incorrect to suggest there was any caution about going to central team

Ap - he quite emphatic about what he says

Pc - he says that. I’m saying it’s not true. I didn’t have many meetings with AS. And only discussed a few cases with him. The context of the service is very complicated and there is dispute about what would amount to a safeguarding concern in relation to gender dysphoria

I totally dispute that I ever said do not go to Sonia

Ap quotes AS again about Polly questioning him about going to discuss a case with Sonia
PC - I categorically think that is incorrect. I don’t recognise my words here…

I don’t question, in the sense you’re implying, people in the team. They are highly trained individuals and each has responsibility for the cases we deal with…And I would not question someone for going to someone in the trust about safeguarding.

Ap refers to statement provided day after NN broadcast on 18th June 2020. Were you involved in producing this statement?

Pc - I’m not sure. It will have come from the comms dept. Around the time of that NN, which was deeply upsetting, I most likely was sent this but I wld need to check

Ap reads the statement as saying safeguarding lead was appointed in august 2018

Pc - the truth is what wld really formalise it is if there was a job description attached to that. In some ways you could argue it wasn’t formalised until even more recently… I don’t know where that date came from

Brief break so that additional questions can be asked of Dinesh Sinha

YG - you’ve produced some emails after your evidence. Why did you look for them and what do they show?
DS - i looked for emails relating to actions relating to Polly Carmichael. The email chain is a link to the concerns and links up with my recollection of speaking to HR director

YG - it talks about a fact finding exercise. Were you involved in that
DS - that was end of my involvement as I am not PC’s line manager.

Ap - have you subsequently found anything else?
DS - I can’t find anything else in relation to Pc
Ap - are these in relation to Sa only. We know there are allegations she has made homophobic remarks, and from Anastassis Spiliadis about his Greek heritage?

DS - as far as I know it was concerns raised in the review. I don’t have further information

PC evidence continues

Ap - (p402) email from Sa to rob senior, October ‘17. First protected disclosure and then a second a few weeks later saying she’s seen four clinicians form GIDS in as many weeks… you found about these in early 2018?
Pc - yes

Ap (p404) - email about safeguarding in GIDS. SA replies says she’s escalated discussions on two occasions and is awaiting a response… Gr forwards this to you and Sarah Davidson and Bernadette Wren

Pc confirms that both were in exec though Bw has retired and SD has left the service now

Ap - going to suggest that response from GR is disrespectful to SA. Wld you agree?
Pc - No. the two emails you refer to are quite strange. Email from frank is quite complimentary and Sonia’s email raises concerns about functionality of the team…

Think there’s an assumption that there’s someone in the exec who’s not responded

Ap - GR could have just asked Sonia directly
Pc - I think he’s just checking there’s a response that we haven’t done

Pc says it’s clear from her email and the chain that there is not clear, open communication; that we as a team want to do our best…I don’t see any more than that

Ap - why don’t you approach SA and also what it’s about
Pc - my focus at the time was on whether there was something or not that we should have responded to

Ap - but what you don’t do is hit the reply button and say Sonia I’m confused here. That would have been best wouldn’t it

Pc - I don’t think so. I’m genuinely trying to find out if there is something we should have done.

Ap - you refer to the fact that SA didn’t bring concerns to you. You’ve heard through these proceedings that she did go to RS and why

Pc - I respect that. And I didn’t know that at the time. But the state of affairs was that I was not communicated with

Ap says it’s clear that she wasn’t critical of you, it was of Rob Senior
Pc - at the time we knew there were Concerns being raised that we were not invited to respond to. That’s not a criticism of Sonia

Ap - you understand now that dr Senior said he’d raise it with your line manager and she was waiting for that to happen. I don’t know why she was taking to task about this last week…

Pc - don’t recall in our meeting in 2018 that she was waiting for a response. I recall it as a positive meeting and Sonia apologised for not bringing concerns to me and said she wld in the future

Ap suggests pc has a mindset that she knows best
Pc disagrees. People who known me know that. The context is the team grappling w some very difficult issues, the service expanding rapidly with bots of new clinicians...’we needed support rather than criticism.’

Ap - does it occur to you that the way you talk about Sa to your senior team is quite undermining?
Pc - I don’t accept that. I think it’s quite a straight email… I don’t agree that Sonia is being undermined.

Ap refers to PC’s witness statement (par 44, 142) where she discusses aforementioned email and says she would speak to sally Hodges… but what’s clear is that discussion on best was forward are only intended for your team, not SA

Pc - my intention was to be constructive. It’s not that I had no intention of sitting down with Sonia. It’s important to ascertain the information and get the facts.

Ap - absolutely. But you’re not proposing to include Sa
Pc - not in that email. But I think our focus is on the team and addressing concerns in the team

Ap - except the concerns are safeguarding concerns and she is the safeguarding lead
Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

It’s hard to convey just what a conflicted context this was to work in at the time… there were different views emerging with different perspectives. That threw up differences in the team and as team got larger there were challenges surrounding constructive conversation

Ap - were you in the dark as to want allegations were until meeting in Feb?
Pc - I was.

Ap suggests that PC’s irritation is evident from witness statement
Pc - I do not recall being in a state of ‘considerable irritation.’.. I thought it was a v helpful meeting

Ap - you’re open with her that you were irritated at how you found out. That’s understandable, but wasn’t SA fault

Pc - I don’t agree with that. There was a febrile atmosphere outside the service; there were issues in the service… but if groups get split off then things tend to get polarised. I’m trying to convey why things are difficult. It’s not irritation.

Ap refers to Pc talking about Dr Bell. (438) email from Sonia suggests that something potentially ‘transformational’ needs to happen.
You say that prior to that you didn’t know GIDS staff were meeting with someone outside the service without your knowledge…

your clearly discontented about DB asking questions about the service but you didn’t have problems with SA

Pc - there’s much more to it than that. He had sent me several emails at the beginning of the year asking for information on GIDS… I did meet with dr bell. He told me he didn’t know a lot about the service…

so the background for me was that there was a complete lack of transparency around dr bell meeting with members of the team for a long period of time without my knowledge. That’s v different to the safeguarding lead meeting people about safeguarding concerns…

when you have groups of clinicians going outside the team, perhaps reflecting different views, it can cause difficulties… I’m sitting in a team with v difficult dynamics going on, trying to support that team with open conversation..

and that’s made even more difficult when there are potential splits in the team

Pc and ap discussing SA’s audit of GIDS safeguarding referrals. Pc felt that it was an unfair comparison and didn’t think it very helpful and didn’t show understanding of the service

AP now refers to email from David bell to PC and sally Hodges where he asks to meet both of them with Sonia. That meeting went ahead?
Pc - yes.
Ap - is it right that Sa left after 30 mins.

Pc - I don’t recall her leaving… it was a difficult meeting. Concerns of staff were relayed. There is a note of the meeting in DB’s report though I don’t recall notes being taken at the time.

Ap - what was difficult?
Pc - well from memory, DB was saying things I didn’t recognise; we were already addressing a lot of the things that had been raised, inc safeguarding; we were aware of different views: there was a lot of media attention…

… I do recall being upset in that meeting… I don’t recall being more interested in who had made concerns. I think I was genuinely trying to understand how to take things forwards

This was the second time I’d met DB.
AP - anything else you want to say about that meeting
PC - no

AP - have to suggest to you that you were quite keen to find out who’s said these concerns?
Pc - I don’t recall… I’m deeply committed to the team and the service… I might well have said who was it but absolutely disagree that that was a focus at all. Of import are the concerns

Ap - were you watching when Anna Churcher Clarke have evidence?
Pc - i was
Ap - she said something very similar. That you said to her that you were more interested in finding out who had spoke to DB rather than the concerns

Pc - I absolutely don’t accept that. I don’t agree… I don’t recall saying that at all… I’m not ACC’s manager, yes I would have seen her around, but I don’t recall that… I’m sure there was connection in the service, but I don’t recall saying that

Ap - yet you do remember asking for names of DB?
Pc - I’ve not asked members of the team. In the meeting with DB and SA I do recall saying something like ‘who was that’ but I guess it was a reaction borne out of concern for the team. But nothing more than that

Pc - I don’t agree that I asked ACC. I think it’s A very different thing meeting with a governor and SA than a member of the team
Ap - and you did ask her who DB had been speaking to?
Pc - No

(402 SB) - joint report to the board. Can you help with how this was written and when?
Pc - my recall of this is that sally put this together and I would have commented on it. I wld have to check my emails to confirm that

Ap - was it v largely written by sally or lots of comments from you?
Pc - I think it was based on things I had said in the past but was largely compiled by sally.

Pc - I think it’s true to say that if the service isn’t aware of concerns it’s hard to respond effectively. I think within the service there was a restructuring and hopefully some improved clarity around communication

Pc says safeguarding concerns would be raised through the agreement - in the first instance through Garry then central safeguarding; if there was a referral then it would go through central safeguarding and they’d be informed

Responding to a particular case, Pc says that any case where there is a concern raised about safeguarding is taken very seriously

Ap - you appear to suggest to SA that it’s not appropriate for her to have spoken to a district nurse
Pc - I don’t agree. It’s a straight email. Garry managed both individuals and knew the case …

I think what’s missing from this, and I realise this is an employment tribunal, is that this is about children and families and cases are complicated… it’s not intended to undermine SA in any way at all.

… i think sometimes things are read in a way they’re not intended.. it was not in any way a concern about Sonia or questioning her role or that the designated nurse had contacted her in her role as lead safeguarding person. It was not about that.

Ap talks about PC sending David Bell report to ltd number of senior GIDS staff; says she doesn’t think it has issues which they weren’t already aware of …
What were your feelings on read Dr bell’s report?

Pc - I think I thought there were a lot of inaccuracies; that it didn’t reflect the service; the language used was unfortunate - it matters in this field; I thought it was pathologising and that the language was not always respectful

Ap - and what about SA’s involvement?
Pc - I’m not sure it featured large… it’s hard reflecting on how I was feeling three years ago… as I said, her role was understandable. She’s raised concerns with her managers.

Next AP refers to SA’s request for GIDS safeguarding data for her audit. Suggests that again we see GR pushing back on that. Is that fairy?
Pc - I don’t think that’s fair, no

End of evidence on day 6. Case resumes 09:30 tomorrow