Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon: this is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually tweeting from the court hearing @8RosarioSanchez Raquel Rosario Sanchez's claim against Bristol University. The Court will resume at 1.45pm.

Thread of this morning's session:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1490977415174434819

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez This afternoon's session will see Alice de Coverley (AC) barrister for Raquel Rosario Sanchez being presenting the claimant's case.

The barrister for Bristol University is Laura Johnson (LC).

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez Session begins.

The claimant will now give her evidence.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez Claimant Raquel Rosario Sanchez is sworn in.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez AC: takes RRS to her written statement in the bundle.

AC: confirms with RRS that this is her statement and is a true statement.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez AC: takes RRS to a further written statement in the bundle. Confirms with RRS that this is also her statement and is a true statement.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: Begins to question RRS.

LC: Meeting in Feb 2019 that she chaired. RRS told later disciplinary hearing that she thought there cd be protests, but had no idea it would be what happened.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez RRS: yes

LC: Q re social media

RRS: Was on Twitter but not Facebook

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: Womans' Place brought Facebook stuff to your attention?

RRS: It was more "a couple of people" - at that time WPUK was a pretty informal group, not an 'organisation' as such.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: goes through some emails between RRS and the university re the event to be chaired and RRS complaint re an open letter that was written about it

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: You set out what happened re the meeting, the letter, you said this letter was malicious rumours and that was your complaint?
RRS: Yes
LC: You detail inappropriate comments made online re the meeting.
RRS: yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: these comments didn't name you.
RRS: The open letter did, and these comments are about the letter.
LC: comments did not name you.
RRS: comments were about the letter, which did.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: comments talk about "TERFs" and about wanting to punch them.
RRS: yes.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: You name 5 individuals and 1 university society as being what you are complaining about. One of the individuals was not a Bristol student?
RRS: I don't know.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: Since original complaint (Jan/Feb 2018) you have said that a number of university staff etc have colluded in attacking you
RRS: yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: What exactly do you say was this collusion?
RRS: Email chains show staff members were in direct contact with the activists I was complaining of

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: What shows they were *colluding* with activists re attacking you

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [I have not caught RRS response to this - reference to university groups I think]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: Describes exchange of emails re promoting a petition. How collusion?
RRS: petition was about the open letter and getting meeting cancelled. Intimidating.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LC: further exchanges between university staff re the WPUK meeting & how it was not on university premises. Should they issue a statement about it.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Another member of staff circulates the open letter to RRS own department. Including sent to RRS herself?
RRS: yes
LJ: Your department head agreed with you this was not OK - supportive?
RRS: yes.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: You notified the email group you would be filing complaint? RRS: yes.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: querying why some of this not in original claim.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: you say all this was going on and university did not take any steps to protect you. So: looking at emails end January 2018. This one again says university is not involved in event and is not providing premises

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [Sorry - LJ is reading extremely fast and it's not possible to hear what is being said]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: this email offers you advice? What to do if under threat? Said phone 101?
RRS: yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: email from a university security officer. [Again reading too fast to hear] LC: University security did contact you?
RRS: Yes
LC: and advsed you of option of police if necessary?
RRS: yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [I am randomly mixing LC and LJ - this is one person, Laura Johnson, barrister for Bristol university. Sorry for confusion]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Meeting did take place and uneventfully?
RRS: Yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: There was then a students' union motion?
RRS: Yes, to limit feminist speech on campus.
LJ: You added this to your complaint to university.
RRS: Yes, as escalation.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: at this point you are dealing with Student Complaints Officer. She replied to you. Confirmed university commitment to freedom of speech.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: University will publish statement re this. But cannot take action against students re the open letter & SM posts bcs not all individuals identifiable & not fair to single out the ones that are.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: University did issue statement?
RRS: Yes. But part of this email is part of what I am complaining of.
LJ: Yes we will get to that in its turn.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: You complain of the statement that was published, as victimising you. But you were happy with it at the time?
RRS: Yes.
LJ: It is lawyers that persuaded you there was something wrong with it?
RRS: to see that there was an alternative view.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Email from you thanking university for statement in support of free speech and against intimidation. You say you were relieved, your initial reaction?
RRS: Yes was delighted.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Now the Student Union motion and open letter. You respond to point that university cannot pick out individuals & are not happy. But you don't raise anything new?
RRS: I described as escalation. And that the SU motion was aimed at me (& women with my views).

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: I need to clarify. You talk of the SU motion as aimed at you BUT you don't raise anything new?
RRS: I complained of escalation.
LJ: Nothing new.
RRS: The SU motion WAS new. Was the escalation.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: You then go to university saying the statement had *not* resolved your complaint, and asking them to continue with it?
RRS: Yes [reads some of her email]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: University replies 1st March 2018: offering meeting with Professor X.
LJ: You reply same day: Saying yes great re meeting, and some Qs about how it would work
RRS: Yes

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Meeting was arranged, you email professor X & team 6th March with some advance questions & issues
RRS: Yes
LJ: One issue you raised is: you ask what legal basis university had rejected your complaint. And you ask for psychological support.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez RRS: Yes I say I am asking for 3rd time for student services support.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: You get reply - reassuring you that complaint has *not* been dismissed. Offers meeting date confirmation with Prof X 14th March; offers you information about an external support service SARI and also staff counselling details
LJ: You reply saying you have contacted both.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez RRS: explains she had thought complaint had been dismissed when February statement issued, and had therefore thought she had to complain to get it opened again.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: 12th March, university writes to you. Pleased to hear about meetings & support arranged, confirms university aware & willingness to support RRS in her studies.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Meeting with Prof X took place 14th March. University emailed her on 15th saying glad that happened, and saying that the SU part of the complaint had been fed into the SU complaints process, and asking RRS to contact re any other issues.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [The hearing is now inaudible because there is interference from the microphone of a remote participant I think]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [We appear to be OK again]
LJ is asking about a meeting and then later email - RRS appears to have been happy with meeting one day and then complaining the next? What changed?

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez RRS: there were phone calls and chance meetings not just emails - can't remember what made her think complaint being dismissed.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: student complaints officer replies: confirming working on complaint and it has not been dismissed. Asks RRS to meet her to discuss situation.
RRS: Had felt it was all being compartmentalised and university not linking up all events. Felt university kept starting over.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: Student complaints officer had said: She knew you were still experiencing behaviour you're finding unacceptable, come and discuss.
RRS: There were not multiple complaints, this was all one complaint. All linked.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: why not say so to SCO?
RRS: I did! Wrote pages!!

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: SCO emails and offers date and time for meeting. You reply on 19 March saying university handling badly. saying it feels like you are the one being investigated.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: You question whether the university is trying to run down time for complaint process.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez RRS: Yes I felt I was being passed around from place to place.

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: SCO writes you back a summary of things to date. Explains involvement of different agencies/personnel

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez [The unmuted speaking-over has started again]

@GoodyActually @8RosarioSanchez LJ: SCO is reiterating need to meet in person

LJ: Email from RRS thanking university for taking complaint seriously after a meeting [not sure whether this was the one with prof X or a later one with SCO]

LJ: But you also say how much your daily life at the university was being disrupted.
RRS [upset]
LJ: [offers break]
RRS: declines - but yes, outlines how distressing it all was.

LJ: Next day you hear from a new person, Mr F. He is going to review all documentation.
RRS: Yes
LJ: Mr F has given statement. He forwarded 2 cases of misconduct by 2 students to vice chancellor
RRS: Yes

LJ: From university case summary: there was a case against AA.
LJ: [reading it fast]

LJ: You complain that the university is not addressing its own conduct; hiding behind action against AA & other student.
RRS: Yes. Again, felt university was *fragmenting* things. Failing to deal with the overall-ness.

LJ: But in taking steps against the students the university *was* addressing your complaint.

LJ: Turning to the Particulars Of Claim

LJ: You say there was a meeting on 27 April re AA.
LJ: There is an email to you 1st May telling you this had happened, and that AA case has been referred to disciplinary committee, and asking whether you would be OK to attend that.

LJ: [insisting on date of 27th]
LJ: Actually happened on 25th
LJ: [Questioning why Mr F would have emailed 1st May]

LJ: You say you were told disciplinary panel would question you, but AA's barrister probably would not

LJ: But email of 1st May does say you could be? Mr F clearly says this?
RRS: emails were not only communication

RRS: Am clear that I was told to prepare for Panel questions - I was nervous - and that Qs from barrister very unlikely, so had not prepared.

LJ: But email of 1st May 2018 is explicit that AA's representative could question you?

LJ: Mr F statement: says he met you 4th May to discuss what would happen; you asked if you could give evidence in closed session to avoid AA; Mr F said no that couldn't happen; is that a fair summary
RRS: in general

LJ: Anything you disagree with?
RRS: AA could have heard my evidence via a remote link. Was not necessary to put me in the same room.
LJ: Not asking that. Asking whether you agree Mr F's statement is accurate.
RRS: Yes

LJ: You email Mr F to thank him
RRS: Yes
LJ: You let him know your supervisor would like to attend, and mention worries about protests / harassment outside the hearing, and ask for help/advice re that

LJ [reads something very fast]
RRS [requests slower]
LJ: apologies - [asks RRS to read the bundle instead]
RRS: reads out her concerns re AA's potential for violence against her "because TERF".

LJ: threats from AA's social media?
RRS: No - was bcs Maria Machlachlan assaulted & AA organised support stuff for that attacker.

LJ: You then went home to Dominican Republic for a couple of weeks in late May, and when you came back - email 12th June 2018 - you say "Had a great time, feel happy and strong, but having to deal with very erratic people so want company at the meeting" [? AA hearing?]

LJ: Hearing happened 15th June?
RRS: No, postponed
LJ: There was a meeting 15th June?
RRS: No, postponed!
LJ: Yes it was adjourned, but it did happen?
RRS: Yes

LJ: You emailed afterwards re masked protestors there? And say that university took no steps to protect you, but did the Panel?
RRS: Yes

RRS: Not sure what I am being asked?
Court: [clarifies re the university not protecting her]
RRS: [reads out some of a pamphlet masked protesters were distributing & says it threatens violence]
Court: gently reminds RRS to answer questions she's actually asked.

RRS apologises.

LJ: You say you were asked to get to 15th June hearing an hour early to avoid protestors. And you do not complain of anything bad happening that day,
RRS: Yes I do, that pamphlet
LJ: Not the question. You do not in your statement say anything bad happened.

RRS: I have included the pamphlet as evidence.
LJ: But you don't say you were handed the pamphlet *that day*. You didn't see it that day.
RRS: No because we got there early before it was handed out.

LJ: I am trying to establish that the university advised you how to avoid the protestors, and that advice was followed, and worked. You were accompanied, and you saw no protestors.
RRS: Yes

[Everyone is getting a little bit tired and snappy]

LJ: About this pamphlet. Your statement says the university disclosed it to you
RRS: no I'd seen it before
LJ: You say AA wrote it. But the university did not know that at the time.
RRS: I don't know what they knew

LJ: Moving forward to 23rd Oct 2018. You emailed Mr Feeny saying the pamphlet had reached you via a friend.
RRS: Yes and I say this is serious and is inciting violence against women.
LJ: but you don't say you thought it was written by AA

RRS: Why would I say that? It was obvious - it was about the hearing. And obviously I had not written it and nor had the university!

LJ: But you didn't say so at the time?
RRS: Because point is that even if not by AA it was by students and therefore part of the overall problem.

LJ: OK on to the AA hearing itself

LJ: You say "you were called into hearing; AA had a lawyer, at least one"
LJ: AA only had 1 lawyer, a barrister
RRS: AA had 3 people with him: barrister, his partner and someone else.

LJ: [reads list of attendees] this does not mention AA having the 2 extra people.

LJ: Yes AA barrister questioned you - but Chair of panel frequently intervened to control that questioning.

LJ: Then you were invited to a feminist conference, you didn't tell anyone.
RRS: Yes I did! Much discussion with Mr F. About clash of dates.
LJ: But you didn't ask for change of date.
RRS: Was told it was all arranged, had been very difficult to arrange. Was not given option.

LJ: you were told of an adjournment because of submissions, that AA had no case to answer
RRS: was told of adjournment but not why.

LJ: At that time you were pretty happy with Mr F's handling of the case.
RRS: Yes, I was hopeful that all the troubles would stop.

LJ: You were considering writing an article for Feminist Current, you discussed with the SCO / Mr F.
RRS: Yes, I always checked to make sure I was not going to breach any policy myself.

LJ: Moving on to 24 September 2018 - email from you to Prof X. Saying you have been invited to speak at a Student Free Speech meeting a few weeks later.
LJ: This is you checking whether it's OK to participate.
RRS: yes.
LJ: Did you write the article and speak at the event
RRS yes

LJ: You were happy with things at that time.
LJ: It is time to end nearly?
[judge had said at start of day we would need to end by 16.20 today]

Court: agrees.

LJ: re-draws attention to a bit of bundle that has not redacted AA's identity.

[Court is considering. I am not sure what's been requested].

[Court confirms that yes identifies are in the court copy of the bundle; LJ notes this well need to be removed]

Court: giving standard instruction to RRS, that since she is still in mid-evidence she must not discuss the case with anyone at all, even lawyer, even mother. Confirms this is a standard instruction.

Court: Session ends. Will start again at 10am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp please unroll