Thread by @hannahsbee

THREAD: DAY 7 – 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

Before what's set to be a busy day of witnesses, perhaps a helpful thing to clarify: Dr Sinha explained several times that he interviewed 31 people for his review of GIDS. It's perhaps worth noting that these weren't all members of GIDS staff, as stipulated by terms of reference

Taken from GIDS review and action plan on Tavistock website. Six named posts are listed here. Assuming all four members of GIDS Executive were interviewed, this leaves 21 other members of GIDS staff.
tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/1376…

Today we are set to hear from:
Dr Polly Carmichael (PC) - Director of GIDS
Garry Richardson (GR) - Senior social worker and safeguarding lead for GIDS
Craig de Sousa - Director of HR, Tavistock Trust
And possibly several GIDS clinicians

AP continues questioning of PC...
AP asks about a whole team member in either Nov or Dec 2019
PC confirms both London and Leeds teams would be present
AP (AS Wpar 15) -

AS says: "I cannot remember when, but definitely before I met Dr Sinha when he conducted his review on 7 January 2019, we were first explicitly told by Polly not to take any safeguarding concerns to Sonia. I believe it may have been December 2018."

He also says: "Dr Carmichael seemed to be very stressed and she told the teams that
she could not understand all this concern about the safeguarding issues that Sonia clearly had an agenda, and that she was making all our lives difficult."

AP - do you remember saying these things?
PC - No i don't
AP - AS was very explicit in his evidence and remembering very clearly. you did say these things didn't you?
PC - No, i didn't. there had been earlier meetings where we talked about DB report, but i can't place the context

PC - i didn't say those things but there is a distinction to be made with the clinical work of the service and the patients... partic at that time there are two things - one is the clinical discussion often around indiv cases...

the other is different discussions about the service model, issues that people are concerned about such as sexuality and rise in assigned females etc...

i think it's absolutely untrue to say that concerns about safeguarding issues i couldn't understand them. I think if issues are raised, they were taken very seriously.

AP - AS was very specific.
PC - no it's not what i said. and if he'd had a problem with anything i'd said he should have raised it... i did not say that, much of this is second hand
AP - this is first hand evidence from AS.

PC - if anyone was upset by anything i'd said that should have been raised
AP - AS did raise it with Dr Sinha
PC - the review was much later

AP - AS met with Dr S 7th Jan, so that would be a short time afterwards, wouldn't it?
PC - Indeed
AP - he says that at p1452. He says a number of things:
"people were not encouraged actually
to talk to the safeguarding team outside the GIDS safeguarding team..."

"... until September or October this year when Gary
Richardson was placed as a safeguarding lead in GIDS, but up until then 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 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 and...

"especially in the last how many months until the announcement of the review, 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..."

AP - And Dr Sinha appears to deflect that doesn't he
PC - I can't speak for Mr S...

PC - Dr Spiliadis clearly has his own perception, and i'm not going to speculate where that comes from... and that is incorrect. i come back to my point there were exceedingly strong feelings in the team and some felt that their concerns were not being addressed within the team.

i wouldn’t agree with that - there were attempts ongoing to address their concerns, but they felt that wasn't the case and took their concerns to other people. i think this is confused... there was not a directive, written or not, not to go to Sonia

AP - it's not a matter of perception is it? Either AS is right and you did say this, or you are right, and you didn't
PC - i think the context is there are exceedingly strong feelings around dif approaches or understandings about what is the best approach in this field...

and certainly there are discussions in the team about these v difficult issues and i think that is dif from the c;inical functioning of the team and sonia and i do not believe that there was a directive not to speak to sonia or an undermining of concerns...

indeed we bent over backwards to accommodate these concerns... these beliefs arose from discussions about how to treat people with GD

AP - Dr C, you can't both be right - either you're telling the truth or AS is. it's that simple isn't it?
PC - i can only imagine that in general discussions about v emotive issues in team - and around the time of the review where SA's name was associated with the bell report -

i'm sure there were discussions about individuals' feeling about nature of the work and working with young people... i can say quite honestly that i couldn't tell you what SA feels, so i don't think i'm saying specific things with that regard.

this was a v emotive issues; there was a lot going on. dif groups of people felt they needed to go and speak to people and i put to you where there is lots and lots of discussion about things things get amplified and distorted ...

and i'm saying i can't imagine saying those things in that form
AP - let me put it to you one more time - you're alleged to have said don't go to Sonia, she has an agenda about GIDS... Is there anything you said that could have been misconstrued ?

PC - i cannot remember anything i said at that time that could have been misconstrued in that way
AP - P490 - Points to four texts from Melissa Midgen. AP says that tribunal heard from ACC that she was present at a meeting where team told to go to Garry, and not Sonia

PC - what has been said to the team is go to G in the first instance and that is not the same as don't go to Sonia... as we've heard from Anastassis he went to Sonia without telling me...

i think there was a feeling that people were going to Sonia - that's fine. but i think it's important those discussions are had in the team. we cannot get to grips with these very important issues about how to treat young people with GD if we don't discuss these v difficult cases

PC - I would go further than that... i think we needed to be aware of the issues arising but that it not, therefore, don't go to sonia. and people were going to sonia... GR is a highly respected member of the team and people think his input is valuable

AP – these texts are from MM who has spoken to ACC and is passing that on to Anna Hutchinson. Texts included “the executive are trying to steer people away…” and “To suggest people try to avoid Sonia is not right”

PC – this is exactly how things get confused and amplified… where things are split and there are groups of people with a particular view and they’re clearly exercised – it was obviously of great concern to them…

I would suggest that the exec is being positioned.. and it is not the case. What does it mean to say the exec are trying to manage safeguarding? We have a responsibility to provide a safe service. Safeguarding underpins all that we do

AP – you said these are groups of people with a very particular view – you’re suggesting they have an agenda aren’t you?
PC – I think you’re reading too much
AP – well what did you mean?

PC – I think it’s clear from the text that they are in communication with each other and …
AP – of course people are exorcised about it, because they think it’s not right…
PC – I did not say that about Sonia… so we’re going to have to agree to differ

AP - there is a huge difference betw I may have said this and it’s been misconstrued and this is a group of people with a particular agenda
PC – I did not say that and you’re putting words into my mouth

AP – Par 36 AH statement (118 W) – Dr Hutchinson says: “I believe they are the texts when I first heard that the exec were trying to manage safeguarding in house and were steering people away from Sonia.”

PC – That is her interpretation.. my interpretation is that there was an agreement which Sonia was part of… that safeguarding would be more rooted within the service… and that yes the team were told the appropriate process was to go through Garry in the first instance...

but quite aside from that there was nothing to stop anyone going to safeguarding… but it was also about the team being aware of safeguarding issues

AP – Par 33 Dr Bristow’s statement (80) “Dr Hutchinson told me and Dr Prescott that she had heard from another former colleague, Dr Melissa Midgen … said that in a full team meeting that Polly had told the team not to speak to Sonia. That is my recollection.”

AP - I appreciate it’s not first-hand evidence but clearly supports the first hand evidence of AS and ACC
PC – this is second and third hand info – so is it not a refection of the same conversation we’ve just been talking about?

My answer would be the same – in the first instance go to Garry, and if not Sonia or central safeguarding. So I think in the team ‘we were embedding that practice.’

AP – I want to turn to individual instances where you told people not to go to Sonia (101W) and goes to AS’s statement
Do you recall having 1-2-1 meeting with MR S?

PC – I do recall a couple of meetings with Mr S about cases – they weren’t formal meetings…I’ve talked with anastassis about complex cases. Don’t partic recall speaking to about them on his own, but I may have

AP – AS says: “Polly’s message about Sonia’s position towards GIDS developed and intensified over these recurring meetings, “that Sonia has a very clear agenda about GIDS: that being that “Sonia does not think we are on top of safeguarding concerns”.

PC – it’s just incorrect to say we had recurring meetings…
AP – I suggest you did say those things to him
PC – No I didn’t

AP – Look at paras 23 – 27, he talks about a specific case where he had concerns about Fabricated or induced illness (FII)… do you recall discussing this case with him?

PC – No I don’t… on the basis of the evidence I’m aware of I don’t believe it happened.. and I believe I would recall it because FII in the team was quite an issue…
AP – is it the case that none of this happened or you don’t recall it?

PC – On the suggestion that he and I talked about this case in the past prior to it being raise din an email by SA I do not recall talking to him about the case. The first time I did talk to him about the case, I recall, is ..

.following an email from S saying that she had been contacted by the designated nurse… to be completely clear (quotes from par 23) – and I do not refer talking to Anastassis about this case at that time in several meetings.

However, at a later date Sonia was contacted by the local designated nurse (par 26) – and that is when I spoke to him… he then says (par 27) that he went to polly’s office. I don’t recall that and I don’t understand that because when he looked at sonia’s email he was going away

AP – is it possible that he’s popped his head round the door to speak to you – and you’ve not put the cases together as being the case he’s talked to you about on the phone?

PC – I don’t recall speaking to Mr S about this case, but as you say it’s possible. But I don’t recall. I recall other cases I’ve talked about with Mr S

AP – Quotes AS: “Polly called me on my mobile whilst I was at my other job ...Polly sounded very worried, she told me that she was very anxious and worried and was asking me what was happening with the case because Sonia was chasing GIDS...

"I replied to Polly that this was the case I was talking about in consultation when I had serious concerns about safeguarding and you, Polly, had told me not to take this case to Sonia.”

PC – I do remember the case. If there had been such serious issues that Mr S felt there were issues he could only discuss with me and not GR there was no record of this on care notes… I did call him…

In fact I wanted to reassure him we had this in hand in terms of passing on the info requested. I do not agree … with the explanation being put here… what I can say is that when contacted by Sonia I did a thorough review of the notes and...

apart from no record of any conversation... with myself it was clear that safeguarding had been raised locally… the interpretation that I would tell anyone don’t do safeguarding and put forward for physical intervention is not correct.

PC – I know that if anyone in the team brought a concern about sg to me I would take it v seriously, I would listen... it is not my role to take a directive role to tell them how to conduct their cases.
AP – well that’s exactly what he’s saying in this case

AS "A few days after this call I went to Polly’s office and we started talking about this case. Polly was downplaying the significance of safeguarding concerns. Polly then told me that and we should be really careful when talking to Sonia...

"I understood she was not happy that Sonia had got involved with the case. Her words were ‘you should not just take cases to Sonia – you should discuss things internally and avoid talking to Sonia
as I don’t know what her issue is with GIDS’.
Do you remember that conversation?

PC – That conversation did not take place… firstly, he was out of the country at that point… I wld not downplay the sig of sg concerns. If FII is mentioned in any context… it is an exceedingly serious concern and that should be discussed with Sonia

... – absolutely it’s not true that I would say that. It’s also not true that I would be unhappy about Sonia being involved in that case. Sonia had been contacted by the designated nurse.

PC – The account is quite confused… (PAR 25) “I assume that Sonia must have seen my notes when doing a random check and she immediately alerted GIDS – enquiring why this case had not been taken to safeguarding consultation with the safeguarding team.”

I am not aware of Sonia doing any checks… Factitious illness is a very serious issue which had bene raised locally, and I assume that is why she had been contacted

AP – ACC also recalls an occasion where you effectively told her off for taking a case to SA…do you remember saying that?
PC – No I don’t remember saying that
Ap – is it possible you’ve forgotten about it because it was an everyday thing for you to say things like that?

PC – it wasn’t an everyday thing for me to say things like that… ‘I think the implication that I told people not do things is not correct’… this is a busy clinic
AP – she’s being more subtle…not that you reprimanded her.. but that you disapproved of her going to Sonia

PC – I don’t disapprove of people going to Sonia. That is not my interpretation – that is what you’re doing… that is not a comment I regularly made, if it was I would recall it
AP – my question now is do you recall saying it to ACC?
PC – I don’t recall

AP refers to allegation of trying to find out who'd spoken to DB from ACC. She said ‘to try and convey the sense of paranoia after the DB report’ I spoke to Polly and there was a sense of trying to find out who’d spoken to DB. Do you recall having that conversation with ACC?

PC – No I don’t
AP refers to DB being taken aback by PC being concerned about who had spoken to me – you conceded that didn’t you?

PC - I can imagine in that meeting that I might have said 'gosh who is it?’ or something like that as a comment... to extrapolate from that that I had more interest in finding out who it was rather than what was said is incorrect

AP – DB said under oath that she ‘kept referring to wondering who the people were’… it’’s not possible for their to be a misinterpretation here… do you accept what he says?
PC – No i don't accept that. I think that is Dr B’s interpretation. That is not correct

AP – AS (par 34 W) “Polly accused me of having
given some information to Dr David Bell, even though I had never met Dr David Bell until after I resigned from the Trust. She thought that I had met with Dr Bell...

"and that I had provided him with information that formed the base of his report about GIDS.
However, I did not even know at the time where Dr Bell’s office was in the building...

"I remember being in Polly’s room to collect something when she said to me “I bet you
are one of those people who spoke to David and the journalists” which came as a great shock to me.”
AP - Do you recall saying that to Mr S?

PC – I totally refute that… I do recall Mr S calling me on one occasion completely out of the blue that he’d been approached by someone in the adult (?) dept asking if he wanted to speak. I thought it was an odd call at the time…

I have certainly not accused anyone in the team of speaking to anyone. That’s just wrong.

AP – that hasn’t been put to Mr S because not in your witness statement
PC – it’s just come to me… it’s a very detailed account and it’s not correct

AP – just on the issue of you asking for information on who’d spoken to Dr B – three people have said this (AS, ACC and DB) – these people are all either wrong, mistaken or lying?

PC – I think I’ve said in the meeting with DB I probably did wonder who’d said it.. the context for me - I was probably trying to make sense of things… communication was not open… of course I was trying to make sense of it.

It was not that I had a focus on who had spoken… I’m sure in the team there would have been speculation but that’s not to say concerns weren’t being addressed… many of the concerns were already being addressed

AP – so the other two are lying or mistaken?
PC – I don’t recall making any such comment

AP (p843) – notes of interview betw Andrew Hodge and PC… this echoes something we keep hearing that you don’t like other people going to anyone but you
PC – we don’t keep hearing it; you keep saying it, and I don’t agree

AP – note refers to ‘dangerous to take things out of the team’
PC – it’s not clear what that refers to, whether it’s a question. But what I stand by is that it’s important to be aware of these issues within the team and manage these issues internally...

It’s a balancing act – we are criticised from two sides – both being too affirmative and too conservative.
AP – my assumption is that Mr Hodge is asking you questions over the phone and writing down your answers… wld you agree that’s the most likely interpretation?

PC – I agree that’s the most likely explanation, but I don’t recognise all of the language used. “Dangerous to take things out of the team. The kaleidoscope needs to be managed internally”. That could be interpreted as me not wanting anything outside the team...

but what I probably meant by that was that if dif views are split in the team what you’re not doing is openly discussing those and openly trying to find your way through difficult issues where there are strongly held point of view.

So I do think that the team needed to be supported to bring some of these issues together. We've heard a lot about transphobia in the team, or people being accused of being transphobic, as far as I’m aware this relates to one person.

When it gets to these offensive issues, the team is not processing these at the time… it is an ethically challenging area. There is a building evidence base and the team is always responding to things as they develop. And if there is a split…

you’re not addressing these issues in a way that allows the service to move forward.
… I’m glad I’ve given that interpretation because I think dangerous to take things out of the team can be interpreted in a number of ways

AP – Mr Hodge is a professional investigator, former solicitor. You wouldn’t expect him to write things down that you didn’t say?
PC – as you’ve probably realised i do talk in rather a verbose way and I imagine it’s quite difficult to get donw on paper what I’ve say.

E.g. I would not say ‘drumming up witnesses’ – that is not a phrase I would use.
AP – do you accept that you would have said you wld have liked Sonia to come to you?

PC – I think we’ve already discussed that if we’re talking about 2018… I guess I’m saying it may have been helpful if things had been raised at an earlier stage

AP – but the next sentence is not about that time at all – you say: “David Bell was seeking people to talk to him so maybe Sonia was drumming up witnesses for him”

PC – that is an exceedingly unfortunate turn of phrase.. I did hear on a number of occasions that there was a seeking out of individuals by David bell in quite a proactive way…

eg a psychanalyst who’d worked in the service in the past, but when she was positive about the service he wasn’t interested and didn't take fwd. And I’ve heard that elsewhere. The phrase ‘drumming up’ is not one I wld use…

the relationship betw DB and SA I don’t know… but Sonia’s motivations were concerns quite rightly about safeguarding.
AP – but you are speculating about relationship between them and her relationship with the report

Pc – I don’t get that from that report and that is not a phrase I would use

Ap – you don't want to accept it Dr C because your evidence has been that you had problems with DB but not SA, because it was appropriate given her role. And this shows quite clearly that you did have problem with it – you just don’t want to admit it?

PC – no. you’re problematising things and telling me I don’t want to admit it. Clearly Sonia was involved in some way in that report – I can't really say more than that

Ap – a few lines down from there – “Why did Sonia go straight to Rob w/o talking to Polly as well” – by this point you know why she did this and you’ve said you accepted it. So why are you asking about it?

Pc – I guess I understand that now… but i think Sonia has said in an email that she should have come to me so I don’t think that is a fair interpretation

AP – “S/G usually dealt with locally as part of referral process. But Sonia seemed to be on a fishing
expedition to show that S/G was defective. But was providing no real support.” What did you mean by that?
PC…I think Sonia had only heard on perspective on s/g in the service…

AP – what is absolutely clear from this is that you are suspicious of sonia’s role and what she’s doing – that she was out to show that s/g is defective in gids
Pc – I think she had concerns about s/g in gids and I think to be fair ...

what was harder to have was support within the service for really managing those and given what she heard she probably did think it was defective, so I don’t think that’s an unfair comment really.

AP – next para – “When Sonia refers to email from Polly saying don't talk to Sonia, it was a person who
was quite vulnerable. Polly would not have said “don't talk to Sonia” it was talk to Gary in the first
instance.” What email are you talking about there?

PC – yes. talking about an email sent to Sonia by an ex colleague reporting something they'd heard

(getting everything so it's readable while following proceedings)

AP – “Feels that staff from GIDS were being siphoned off to support Dave Bell view the world.” You’re clearly suspicious aren’t you? Do you remember saying that?

PC – No I don’t. I don’t accept those are the words I would use, its probably shorthand… I think there was active work on the part of dr bell trying to find people to talk to him…

there were also emails after the review was announced inviting people to come forward that caused considerable upset in the team.. I do believe that DB does have a particular view ...

– I think it’s clear in his report that there are strong arguments put fwd. for a different type of service. I think that some of the comments about the service are inaccurate and incorrect, but accept there are different views.. I probably have different views to Dr B…

AP – I don’t think you understand the importance of that sentence – the allegation is about SA – the person siphoning off staff?
PC – that is not about Sonia. I do not think for one minute S siphoned off anyone to support DB. I think DB siphoned off Sonia to support this review.

AP – mr hodge imagined the above comment too did he, that Sonia was ‘drumming up witnesses.?
PC – I’ve never had an opinion that Sonia is siphoning off gids staff – that it is incorrect… I don’t think Sonia was actively putting witnesses forward, no...

do I think DB involved Sonia to support the review. Yes I do… but clearly that is supposition.

AP you had extensive suspicions about SA, weren’t remotely relaxed about her involvement whatever it was in DB’s report
PC… I absolutely maintain that the context of the review was exceedingly dif; the processes around it were not transparent;

I think it had a huge impact on the team, many of whom did find that report upsetting; I don’t think in anyway that has a part in undermining sonia’s role of safeguarding lead in the trust.

AP – I’m just wondering why you didn’t deal with your concerns and suspicions about SA in your witness statement?
Pc – I don’t understand your question

AP – it’s clear from this note that you had significant concern about S’s involvement in the Bell report, and I’m wondering why you didn’t put that in your witness statement

PC - I believe this tribunal is about S’s role in the trust … and this is a whole separate issue. I accept if you think I should have gone into this detail but I was talking about what was absolutely relevant to sonia's role as child safeguarding lead

AP (424SB) refers to email from DS to SH – July 2019 which refers to "an investigation into the reported comments by Polly." It says, "We have agreed that there will be a fact finding pre investigation..."

AP - So far as you are aware, did you ever find out that you were subject to any investigation in relation to allegation that you told a whole team meeting not to take concerns to sonia?

PC – it was raised with me at the time with SH when an email was sent by matt B - it was discussed and I produced emails showing that the process for the service was that people went to Garry and then onto Sonia, but that when Garry wasn’t there to go to sonia...

In terms of this pre investigation, I don’t think it would have necessarily involved me, but I wasn’t aware of this, no...I don’t think that’s unusual. Another member of staff was subject to investigation following allegations and I don’t think they were informed of the outcome

Ap – so a letter wasn’t written warning you as to your future conduct and placed on your file?
PC – I think that presupposes the outcome of any investigation
Ap – it doesn’t sound like there was a formal investigation in any sense of the word does it Dr c?

Pc – I don’t know if I can comment on that. I know there have been investigations and the member of staff has not been part of that.

AP details what a formal investigation might entail, and suggests that being questioned about an email sounded 'delightfully informal'...
PC - it didn’t feel ‘delightfully informal’ to be questioned about Matt's email. It was serious and I responded in that vein

AP – it is a serious allegation, yet unlike SA it didn’t feel necessary to write you a letter to say that if there are any further allegations we would have to document it
PC – I agree

AP – wld you agree that the allegation against you was a much more serious allegation – diverting staff away from the s/g lead for children rather
Pc – I think the allegation against me was from a former member of staff reporting a second hand account…

...so I don’t think they are the same sort of allegation
Ap – And you say this was in response to email from MB… but this email (from DS) was produced in response to an allegation from 3 people… so as far as you're aware, was there any investigation into Mr Sinha's comments?

PC – the email you’ve read is part of a pre-investigation and i was not part of that… I think we’re talking about two different timeframes… the conversation I had with my manager was at the time of that email...

This is about after the review and I was not aware of this pre investigation…
I was asked about the email at about the same time it was sent – January 2019

AP – so as far as you're aware the pre investigation referred to in the email exchange betw dr Sinha and dr hodges - that never went as far as you being asked any question?
PC – No

AP (1333) – this is an extract from your review interview with DS – You say "to say that we've suppressed anything is a really really serious allegation and from my perspective what would that look like, what would that be?"

AP - I put to you what it wld look like is telling people in a whole team meeting not to take concerns to SA; you saying the same thing to individuals when they bring difficult cases; you expressing suspicion of SA; you asking for names of people who’d spoken to DB.

That’s exactly what it would look like?
Pc – and I’ve told you that I don’t accept that I’ve said those things

EJG – (843) what is the relevance of the psychoanalytic approach?
Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment of that...

There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an underlying concern.

So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and therefore what is the treatment for that.

EJG – you said lots of people had concerns but this hadn’t been contextualised – I wondered if you meant you had said something about not taking s/g concerns to SA but taken out of context?

PC – there have been a lot of allegations about things I’ve reportedly said: without doubt the process and the message given to the team is that the route is through the safeguarding lead in the team who links to Sonia…

but I think with some of the comments, I can’t hand on heart recall all the conversations I’ve had on a day to day basis, so my only understanding is that there could have been a misinterpretation about what I’ve said.

EJG – what do you think you were saying?
Pc – I don’t know really, if I’m honest. clearly a few people have reported this, whether that’s become something it wasn’t through discussion amongst themselves or through misreporting me saying go through Garry...

...I don’t know if it’s assumptions or what
EJG – My recollection from GR’s statement is that he didn’t really start his lead role until march 2018 – did you ever put anything in writing to the team about this?

PC – it would definitely be in the safeguarding SOP, 2019, and s/g docs have been under revision and a lot of work has been done on that.
Ejg – wld it be right that if there was a change you’d say it in a team meeting, not an email?
PC – I’d have to check. Sorry

EJG – in 2017 (396/7) – what did you mean by ‘the agenda'
Pc – its so ridiculous – I must have read the email quickly from sonia (398) – I completely misread it…. I’m sure I could appear disingenuous here,... but my read from that is what is the agenda of the meeting...

...but clearly I understand that it’s been read as an underlying agenda.
And then the reply comes from Rob and I kick myself.

EJG – so you’re not talking about an underlying purpose that does not meet the eye, you’re talking about the agenda of the meeting
PC – yes, I think so. It just wasn’t clear to me what the meeting was about because I had misread the email.

EJG – did you then have a discussion about what GR would be doing?
PC – I think there was something about this when SA was presenting… I don’t remember
EJG – did you have any meeting with GR to talk about what he was meant to be doing

PC – I wld have talked with Mr R, and that wld have been decided in an exec meeting. He was to be a link to Sonia and it would have been about improving communication.

YG – (401SB) says PC was co author of report to the board in July 2018 – you set out a list of key issues. Were you concerned about these?
PC – Exceedingly concerned…SH did put that report together but much of the contents is taken from a report I had produced previously.

YG – do you align yourself with the report or not?
PC – I do
YG – were you sent notes that Andrew hodge made?
PC – No. (and not given opportunity to comment)

PC adds – I was being questioned about email about pre-investigation, I’d like to add that there was a meeting betw Mr Spiliadis and Ailsa Swarbrick – he had made a number of allegations, I was quite keen they be taken forward formally, and he chose not to do that...

I don’t know if that’s relevant but thought I would mention it

END OF POLLY CARMICHAEL EVIDENCE

DR MATT BRISTOW IS NEXT WITNESS
YG says she has no questions
No questions from the tribunal team

GARRY RICHARDSON IS NEXT WITNESS

YG – can you explain how referrals come into GIDS
GR – by a number of agencies – commonly CAMHS and GPS, but can also include schools and third sector organisation

YG – and are they dealing with risk or not dealing with risk to those young people… are any of those holding risk in respect of those young people or not?

GR – it wld depend on the agency: if YP referred by CAMHS and they remain involved, they wld be the lead agency for monitoring and supporting ongoing risk. Same wld be case for social care

Anya Palmer questioning...
AP – (395) do you agree link role evolved into a safeguarding lead?

GR – I think this email is the only one that refers to the role as a 'link' – SA calls me lead that same day - and as far as I’m concerned lead was the role from that point on and that is how the team knew me.
AP – can you show me any emails that show this?
GR – not at this time

Ap – So because SA calls you that – she says mistakenly – you believed that to be your role?
GR – That was my understanding all along… I’m not sure why it was described as a link in that email

AP says even in Jan 2018 he’s not referred to as a lead.
GR says it was always his understanding that he was lead

GR confirms he wasn’t given any extra time and resource to deal with this role until some time in 2020
He explains that he didn’t have any specific training apart from my 'substantial experience' working in children’s social care

LUNCH

AP discusses meeting on 8th March 2018 between SA and GR.
AP - this was meeting to discuss how you’d strengthen s/g within gids and work together
GR – yes that’s right.

AP – you claim that SA says that GIDS needs to be careful a Jimmy Savile situation doesn’t arise. She denies that – I put to you she doesn’t say that?
GR – that’s wrong. She did say it

AP – it’s not in your note of the meeting
GR – It's not. My action was to speak to my line manager Dr Sarah Davidson.
AP – and you don’t have any notes of that either?
GR – I don’t

AP – and then it (witness statement?) says dr sarah davidson raised it with Dr PC
GR – I don’t know if there are notes from the time, but those are the words that were said to me at the time and not something I would forget.

Ap – So you’re so upset by it at the time that you wouldn’t forget it, but not enough to make a note or raise a grievance
GR – there was so much going on in the team at the time…

...I wld agree there was a ’bad environment’ – we were trying our hardest to bring the heat out of things a bit and my decision not to raise a formal grievance at the time may have been part of that… I just didn’t think it would be a helpful response at the time

AP – I suggest to you that even if you’re right and she said anything like this at the time, the correct thing might have been to say to her 'I take objection to that' – be straight with her – rather than store it up

GR - I was quite shocked because the imputation was that as a team we were standing by and allowing this secret harm of children to happen.. it was really shocking and for someone in a safeguarding (?) position in any institution ...

...what you look for is an approach that’s going to be sensitive, measured and containing, and that was the opposite … it was incendiary. It did nothing to add to the debate in how to intervene with this population of young people in any helpful way

AP – first of all SA did not say you were standing by and allowing harm to young people and that wasn’t even put to her by your counsel… but you’re talking about the best way forward, and wouldn’t have it been a better thing to say to her...

‘hang on a minute you cant say that, I find that upsetting’ – to be straight with her
GR – I think if you read my statement – I had a look of shock on my face; that’s when she qualified it.

AP – you still haven’t answered the question. I know you say you believe you looked shocked and then went on to say things that were - in your mind - even worse. My question is even if this happened – which we say didn’t – wouldn’t you be better off being straight with her?

GR – I said possibly, but I was shocked and I didn’t. this did happen. I have some worries about this being brought into the public domain and about the impact this could have on our client group…

...and wherever you stand on our work, it’s accepted we work with a group of vulnerable young people… we’re trying to work through the judicial review...

AP- well that’s on you for making it up
GR. I didn’t make it up. I’m a truthful, ethical person… I take my code of conduct v seriously... I am open, honest and reliable.

AP – I want to take you to something before the break. Dr C said that she misunderstood something SA had said (397). Suggests SA’s email is perfectly straightforward and not offensive to anyone. Dr C says ‘I’m getting very confused and unsure of the agenda here’...

SA felt v confused and was wondering she was seen to have an agenda. We only know now that PC misunderstood this, and thought Rob S and SA were talking about PC’s role. And in that case because PC was straight about it, it was clarified and it went no further...

In your case, I suggest that if the claimant said anything at all, you have completely misunderstood and because you haven’t said anything it hasn’t been possible to clear it up

GR – I don’t agree. I’m not the one who said those words. Perhaps I should have raised it at the time, I didn’t. I raised it with my line manager in the same way SA did with Dr Senior when she had concerns

AP (466 – Email from SA about a particular gids case) – you don’t seem to be able to deal directly with SA; you forward it to Dr C and get her to deal with it
GR – I don’t agree with that. There are lots of examples of where I’m able to communicate with Sonia…

...I imagine that I had had a conversation with Polly; that she had already been involved in the case by talking with Mr Spiliadis so I imagine she requested me to forward her that information

AP – I don’t see any mention of Mr spiliadis in this case at that time at all
GR – that is my understanding that it is that case. As you heard earlier, I was the line manager of both the clinicians involved at the time; there was nothing underhand or secretive going on

AP returns to Jimmy Savile comments (pat 26 p171W) AP where GR says he raised the comments again at a Meeting of senior manager in summer 2018
AP - can we be more specific about when this meeting took place?

AP -We know that PC sent you the Bell report on 29th Aug 2018. That’s when you first saw the bell report, is that right?
GR – yes.

AP – indeed that looks like the first time anyone has seen it – either 27/28/29 august. So the meeting you refer to in summer 2018 must be after that?
GR – Yes… actually I can’t say with any certainty the date of that meeting, whether it’s before or after.

AP – well it’s only after that that a decision is taken to commission a review of GIDS by Dr Sinha... you were at this meeting, who else was there?
GR – my recollection is that it was a meeting for the gids exec and senior team...

...as well as some senior managers from across the trust – sally hodges, I think Louise Lyons and I think Gill Rusbridger may have been there
Ap – were there any notes from this meeting?
GR – I don’t know, I can’t recall

AP – you say you were disappointed that Dr B was able to openly publish critical comments about gids but your concerns had not been acted on… am I right in thinking you expressed those concerns in this meeting?
GR – My statement is correct

AP – your statement is not as clear as it might be… you say you did not name SA… can you tell the tribunal what you said at the meeting?
GR – I can’t recollect what I said at the meeting – it was 2018

AP – am I right in thinking others in the meeting were expressing concerns about Dr B’s report?
GR – I think there are many people in the team who have expressed concerns about the process - how unfair and unbalanced it was
AP – how long did the meeting go on for?

Gr – Not longer than an hour...my recollection is that Paul Jenkins (Tavistock CEO) was explaining to us a bit about the timeline that had happened and what we could expect

AP – so there was a time when PJ was talking and there was also a time where you put your hand up and talked about this…
GR – I can’t remember the details of that meeting… I know that there were colleagues who were equally upset about what had gone on but I can’t recall details

AP – is it fair to say there were other conversations with your colleagues about the bell report?
GR – yes, I think that would be fair to say. That was a natural thing that we would talk about it

AP moves to GR’s interview with Dr Sinha (1391 – 1393 p10 transcript) – compares this with later unredacted version (SB246)

AP quotes GR saying: “I thought there are other issues as well. I think the services relationship with the safeguarding team and the trust has been and continues to be somewhat problematic.”

You also say, “I have also had conversations with people who felt that when they have been for safeguarding advice that it has been sort of less of a collaborative process or collaborative conversation and
much more directive...

and, I appreciate that there are going to be occasions where the safeguarding lead has to be quite directive, but that seems to be a bit of a theme.
DS: This is the children safeguarding lead?
GR: Yes.

AP - So you’re there expressing a criticism of Miss A aren’t you
GR – I think I’m being honest about my understanding of the relationship at the time in the context of what I thought was a confidential meeting

AP – you go on to raise another issue – “I suppose as well Sonia's name was on David Bell’s report and seemingly to endorse the contents of the report and my worry is that if Sonia is taking a particular position in view about our work ...

"then I have a worry about how balanced her advice would be.”
That’s the context in which you raise the Savile remark. Its squarely linked to her involvement in the bell report and she can’t be trusted

GR – my concern about the bell report is that it wasn’t balanced and it was not fair. I think DB said he had interview 1/3 team, but it was 10 people, some had left, and we had 100-110 staff at that point…

...And a stark example of this was in a trust staff meeting a senior psychoanalyst was approached about talking to Dr Bell.
GR explains that when she spoke favourably at gids DB didn't want to take it forward

GR - I did have worries about the process surrounding that report; I have no issues with Miss A having to raise concerns… that’s not in question whatsoever – but I did have worries how balanced that process had been…

...and DB was v clear that Miss A had been involved in that process and I’m raising this in what I thought was a confidential meeting
AP – you do it in relation to there being safeguarding issues and linking it to SA’s involvement in DB’s report

GR – I think I’m raising issues about how balanced her view of the team and the work is… you at least have to have some curiosity about the other perspectives in the team. That’s something I’ve never seen from Miss A.

I think my concerns about the process around the DB report did also map onto my experience of having had the jimmy Savile comment said to me

AP – can you explain?
GS – just in terms of how our work was being viewed. But also just to say that these are views that I didn’t air publicly; they didn’t prevent me from working alongside the central safeguarding team or working alongside SA when I needed to;

and they certainly didn’t prevent me or anyone else in the team raising concerns with SA

AP – I’m going to suggest you raising this allegation was precisely motivated by your perception of SA's involvement with DB’s report
GR – no I don’t agree with that. There was a context there in terms of things that had already happened

AP – you say: "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 cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right...

"So I think that is what she meant.”
Dr Sinha then says, “What was that about, did you speak to her about what she meant?”
You say, “Well, I think that was just in terms of the context of people coming forward and saying that they have been silenced...

"She did not use that language, but I am assuming now that at that point, this was back in March, you know she was aware that people had come forward, so I think that was her context really...

"that the Tavistock might try and close something down, because we bring in a lot of money for the trust, but you know the team works exceptionally hard, and ...to have our work referenced in that way. I personally found that quite disrespectful..."

AP - Dr Sinha then asks you if your relationship continues to be difficult and you say yes.
(discussion again of a particular case)
AP - And then you say ‘makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, make me wonder what Sonia’s motives are’…

AP - you’re suggesting her motive is something other than concern for a child?
GR – I don’t think I’m saying that… I think i've already explained how I felt about the working relationship at that time...

As we know form other parts of the bundle my preference at that time was to seek support from dr mckenna

AP – And to underline it, your answer to the next question from CK, you say “I guess they were trying to find information to support that particular view about our work, that perhaps is unsafe in some way that we know we have been negligent in some way"…

AP - So what you’re suggesting there is because you say DB and SA have a particular view on political issues in gids, they are trying to find information to undermine gids or show it's negligent in some way. It's a very clear allegation of bad faith isn’t it?

GR – again, i've said I did not agree with the process around DB’s report…
AP – simple question – you’re making a v clear allegation of bad faith against SA – yes or no?
GR – I was just being honest about how I viewed that situation

Ap – ok. you don’t want to own it. We’ll move on

AP moves on (479) – there’s an issue in summer 2018 that GIDS safeguarding cases weren’t recorded in care notes
GR – GIDS had been left of trust emails …
AP – I’m not proportioning blame, but there was an issue that needed to be dealt with…

GR – it was never made clear to me that the responsibility for providing the quarterly data wld be handed over to gids… the central safeguarding team had always done that

AP – as I understand it, SA sent you a request, but again it appears rather than go back to her and say you didn’t understand you were meant to be doing it, you seem to have gone to Dr hodges...

Again we see a pattern where you don’t relate directly to the claimant, you go to dr hodges and she pushes back with a request for some context. I don’t understand why you couldn’t just reply to the request and explain what the problem was

GR – I don’t think I did go direct to SH, but rather to PC or the exec team. It’s good for me to escalate requests of this nature so that they can have an overview of that.
AP – SA says she wasn’t asking for anything out of the ordinary...

...just that you should take ownership of the process… she has no idea of the concerns you hold about her, … you’ve clearly held concerns since finding out about the DB report –

what I’m suggesting is that you and others view the request with suspicion because you think she might be gathering data for dr bell
GR – no that’s not the case at all. I knew that the trust had to provide info on s/g...

but no one had indicated to me that this had now become my task. We do that now, but at that time it hadn’t been handed over to me.

AP – Miss A says she hasn’t received any referrals – s/g cases – do you accept that?
GR – I’M not sure what you mean by referrals. Can you explain?
AP refers to SA’s claims (P44 par 41)… I’ve taken it to understand you taking cases to her for safeguarding support

GR – this has never been raised as a concern with me until this litigation. I’ve been v transparent that my preference has always been to seek s/g support from dr mckenna and before that dr senior...

...the reason being I feel I have a more collegiate relationship with them. Dr Mck has spent a great deal of time with the team, attended away days, has really tried to understand the complexities of the work, the diversity of the views, the strengths of the team and also...

the worries… there is an example where I reach out to SA and ask her to meet with clinicians for a second time because I was unable to do so, and I was knocked back.. the tone is quite accusatory …so I was left feeling a sense of a bind about going to SA or not

(discussion about emails 505 - 509 - AP and GR disagree)
AP – isn’t it right that ever since you knew about the bell report you didn’t want to work with Miss A and that’s why she says that since 2018 you’ve not referred any cases to her?

GR – no, that’s not true. Following the bell report and the gids review we had several meetings about establishing the SOP, and she continues to be involved with ongoing projects… I have contact with S when I need to. As I’ve already stated, my preferred support is from dr McK

AP – so it’s just a coincidence that referrals dry up in 2018?
GR – I don’t know. Can’t confirm that. It doesn’t sound right to me… I think there may be a difference in opinion in what makes a referral..

GR - it’s important to say that there is no requirement on me to take cases to SA specifically. I can take cases to someone for advice with someone who I feel I have a good, strong collegiate relationship with and I have that with Dr McKenna...

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take something to Sonia

AP – you know that Dr C had said that referrals shouldn’t go to Sonia; and you viewed her with suspicion. The reason you had that was because of her protected disclosures
GR – I only knew of her protected disclosures as part of this case…

GR repeats that he has a strong relationship with the Dr McK and that is the cornerstone of good safeguarding

AP – that’s not true. You knew she had spoken as part of the Bell report and you are suspicious of her
GR – in many ways the meeting in march 2018 where she made the JS comment set the tone of the relationship

EJG - 1393 – You preface the comment about JS saying DS may have already heard about that – where did you think he might have heard it from?
GR – that I had reported that comment to my line manager and thought it might have gone up the chain that way

EJG – when you spoke to SD about this comment what did she say?
GR – I honesty can’t remember the detail of that conversation at this point but she agreed to raise it with Dr C, but I think she was also quite shocked

EJG – did you get any feedback after that?
GR – I don’t think I did.
*
AP – one question that SA wants asked – she says she was asked to step down from the transformation team because of your feeling towards her – is that right?
GR – I have no knowledge of that

YG asks about GR’s training and experience – did you have qualifications listed in job description?
GR – yes. Those are skills that I’ve acquired over my career, yes.

YG asks about meeting with Frank Lowe (social worker)
GR says he agreed that the meeting was inspiring and the social workers in the team were working v hard and thinking about how they could be a good resource to colleagues

GR says he didn’t have any contact with SA before he became the s/g lead, so all my contact with her has been since then

YG – it was put to you that you knew she had done some work with DB. To what extent were you aware that in the course of doing so she made public interest disclosures?
GR – I wasn’t aware of the time.

END OF GARRY RICHARDSON QUESTIONING

NEXT WITNESS: DR ANNA HUTCHINSON

No questions for this witness

NEXT WITNESS: CRAIG DE SOUSA - Tavi Director of HR
AP seeks clarification on the difference betw the 2 versions of the DB report

(p10-11 SB) my understanding is that this is the first version which references SA’s involvement… then p382 - 384SB - is that the second version? Paragraph talking about SA’s contribution has dropped out.
CDS - That’s the one difference…

...the latter version is the one that was shared, minus the transcripts

AP refers to Andrew Hodge report – are these Mr Hodge’s own notes?
CDS – they are and I never had sight of them until the composition of the bundle. I would say that these are his notes, and absolutely not a verbatim record of what i said

AP – where do you get that from?
CDS – From my own recollection of my conversation with him; it’s his formulation of the conversation and in some instances very heavily paraphrased.

END OF ALL WITNESS TESTIMONY

Submissions will be made by both sides tomorrow at 10:00

(Apologies for the drip feeding - children got in the way of clicking 'add tweet' multiple times)