Good morning. This is @TerfyMcTerfy tweeting today from Bristol Civil Justice Centre on Raquel Rosario Sanchez ‘s case against @BristolUni in front of District Judge Alexander Ralton. Proceedings start at 10am.
Alice Coverley (AC) is the barrister for Raquel Rosario Sanchez (RRS) and Laura Johnson (LJ) is the barrister for Bristol University.
This is my first time live tweeting so bear with me and wish me luck!
Remote link has started. Note from court clerk, Proceedings will now start at 10.30am instead of 10am. BRB!
Proceedings about to begin.
[All rising...judge has arrived]. Continuing with claimants evidence today. [RRS goes to witness box].
LJ: to recap from yesterday. Decision from committee was given in writing - conclusion was no case to answer for 2 allegations. 4 allegations continued. Did u understand that 4 complaints were going to continue? RRS: yes
LJ: There had been ra econvened hearing which was cancelled. Concern about no other date being found. You [RRS] and AA asked to provide new dates. Do you remember letter? RRS: Yes
*a reconvened
LJ: you emailed legal department and asked her to help you understand what was happening. RRS: Yes. LJ: she responded same day. You replied to her email and u asked for more help and what you needed to put in written document. Worried about uni dropping case for your safety
LJ: You wanted proceedings to continue. You felt u were being investigated. You were told that you were being asked about your feelings RRS: I had spent a full year detailing same point over and over about detrimental impact on me. Nothing was enough. I provided psychological
records. LJ: you were told you could chose to share. RRS: I would do whatever lawyers suggested to make all of this stop. LJ: [?] sent email to you. She wrote uni wanted to know how things were affecting everyone. She explains that your role is at a witness. RRS: but I was the
only one being asked questions. It was a bad internal process from uni. Things had happened since - drink thrown over friend. Uni said to let them know if things escalated and then they will take it seriously. LJ: uni said to let them know if things got worse but they didn't say
that they weren't taking it seriously. So you wrote a letter about the effect of the delay on you. you raised some complaints about AA's conduct to a friend of yours. You mention about the effect on your academic performance. You said: I feel like every other thing I am stronger
in [activism] but academically not able to focus. RRS: yes because I was being bullied in my studies but not in the other things I was doing. LJ: Exploring what other aspects of your life you were able to work at.
LJ: submissions made to disciplinary committee by Mr Feany [?] (Mr F). Was it your understanding that Mr F said proceedings should continue? [couldn't hear answer]. LJ: Decision of Prof Squires. Have you seen this? RRS: I don't think I've seen it before. LJ: this Prof Squires
saying what she thinks should happen next. Such behaviour of AA should be investigated. To abandon this case would be bad for uni. Freedom of expression is key to academic experience. Current uncertainty is detrimental to RRS. Delays have been due to AA. The one person who does
not bear responsibility is the claimant. RRS: she changed her mind later. LJ: just asking about this document RRS: She changed her mind later. The uni's has to uphold free speech. This includes both parties [RRS and AA]. AJ: A letter sent to you from Mrs Bridgewater
from legal dept. saying that proceedings were going to proceed. Proposed dates weren't suitable because of AA's lawyer. RRS: prioritising AA. LJ: Another email from Trecothic-Martin [?] another date for proceedings, you were not required to attene. You reply - ask if AA doesn't
turn up will that be delay? RRS: I remember meeting with Laura Trescothic-Martin [TM]. LJ: you met with TM. RRS: Yes [can't hear next bit]. LJ: email sent by you to Mr F and TM - date had been leaked. RRS: yes this was second time. was told that uni knew it was AA who leaked it
LJ: you emailed saying you had some events at the centre coming up so you were engaged with things in the centre at the time? RRS: yes LJ: meeting went ahead but you weren't there. RRS: yes LJ: you were told directly by Mr F that the hearing had happened but was adjourned bc AA
legal reps had submitted that proceedings should stop RRS: they said his views were protected. Harassment is not covered by this. LJ: you understood that proceedings stopped bc of legal reasons? RRS: yes LJ: you describe having emotional reaction to this news? RRS: yes
LJ: you sent an email to a no of people at uni. RRS: don't recall writing it LJ: but you're not denying you wrote it? RRS: no LJ: email written to you by Prof Squires do you remember getting it? RRS: I don't remember this time at all LJ: Prof S says you have support from uni
Is that right? RRS: this is important point. Hour long convos about impact on my mental health LJ: is it fair comment that you were getting support? RRS: No I would have same convo over and over. Things were meanwhile escalating. LJ: you stayed in uk until end of may?
RRS dad joins the call. Noise so can't hear. Dad muted. Discussion about RRS contacting her dad to tell him to turn off video. RRS distracted by seeing her dad. RRS asks dad to turn off his video in spanish. [Done!] Proceedings continue. LJ: do you want a break? RRS: no
LJ: email u sent to no of people at uni but written to Philippa. You write about 2nd student complaint. u set out incident at event u participated in. u talk about academic progress RRS: yes I found everything difficult LJ: but you went to campus everyday? RRS: I don't remember
LJ: u refer to event and then u went back to visit family. U said you would go to your office from 2018 until you went to family you continued your work? RRS: I went bc uni was assuring me that they were taking things seriously. LJ: after u came back from Dom Rep you started
to find this difficult? You said if was after summer 2019 that u found it difficult to go back RRS: I meant May 2019 LJ: that's not what you said LJ: in your statement u describe trip in June 2019 RRS: it was before I went home LJ: this is what's is difficult. you are clear about
becoming unwell after summer 2019. RRS: that's not correct. I was unwell from May. I explained I organised femanist meeting. I was bullied and harassed but I had a responsibility to attend. I have no memory of that time [bc of stress]. LJ: you were in Dom Rep for 2 weeks. U
say you felt better during Dom Rep. RRS: there were 2 trips LJ: you felt better on this trip RRS: my family were taking care of me LJ: you came back to UK. Email from Philippa notifying you that proceedings against AA terminated. Can't give details bc legal reasons. Can meet if u
want. Aubrey (uni rep for sensitive [vulnerable?] students) ref'd to here as A. Philippa says can bring A to meeting. You were reg'd with GP since jan 2018 but July 2019 is 1st time u visit GP re mental health RRS: no I spoke to him before LJ: right RRS: in Dom Rep u don't see
doc re mental health. U see counsellors. I was receiving mental health support from lots of sources inc uni from april 2018. LJ: this was 1st time u went to GP. I can't find records of other times u went LJ: you went to GP re low mood anxiety RRS: please be mindful of my doc
records LJ: I will be sensitive. Judge: proceedings in open court. Mental health details can be referred to. you don't have choice about what is mentioned in open court. I'm sure LJ will only refer to relevant things. If you need break please ask. LJ: you reported low mood to doc
you reported to GP that you had lifelong history of low mood and depression RRS: that's not true LJ but that's what you said. LJ: [refers to redacted info but doesn't detail anything]. Do you want to take a break? RRS: No LJ: mood affected by recent events. you report bad sleep
pattern and depression. GP records therapy in the past and lifelong mental health issues. There is medication referred to, is that true? RRS: yes. I work on violence against women so I have reasons for mental health problems LJ: those reasons are why you were there
LJ: you saw uni mental health people. didn't want medication bc of your studies. [refers to redacted exacerbated factors] The whole situation inc behaviour of AA, the effect it was having on studies and then proceedings being terminated. You mentioned this to GP? RRS: I dont
remember. LJ: no more medical questions. you had meeting in aug 2019 with Bridgewater and TM. Do you recall? RRS: I remember LJ: email sent to you. does this accurately describe the meeting? RRS: it was a confusing situation LJ: was it accurately describing? RRS yes of a
confusing situation. LJ: u were concerned about your progress with PhD. RRS: I couldn't make progress LJ: your [tutor?] wouldn't sign off your progress report so u wouldn't be able to carry on studies. Mrs B said graduate dean is considering your position. Looking into
interim [?] to enable you to continue at Bristol Uni. LJ: this records that uni were trying to help you to stay RRS: I don't think this was about supporting me LJ: you wanted the uni to help you stay while you decided what to do. It was confirmed to you that complaint was still
live and what would be happening going forward. You were well enough to be interviewed by The Times? RRS: I was desperate for help so I contacted The Times and also Radio 4. LJ: you emailed thanking Mrs B for summarising sit and for contacting the graduate dean. U request 2
risk assessments one re AA and one re your safety on campus. [refers to counselling records] it says writing a new platform for feminist RRS: I wanted to keep active. LJ: you had meeting with Prof Welders [?]. You were offered 3 options. 2 month suspension to stop clock on
progression, other two were to leave [sorry missed details]. Legal allegations from you: that members of uni aimed to trick you into ending your ability to remain at the uni. Serious allegation. You suggest that Welders RRS: all of them LJ: they were trying to trick you to leave
UK so proceedings would stop. RRS: yes LJ: you accused Welders of this? RRS: I AM going to lose my immigration status. Judge: this is a serious allegation. That the uni plotted to get rid of you RRS: I don't know about plotted. LJ: Natasha Mulvahill (?) your supervisor.
Do you agree that email shows an accurate account? There was some confusion bc Juta(?) didn't know about the details. Is this what happened? I'm asking about the meeting you were at. Serious allegations. You didn't go into details and neither did Mulvahill. RRS: separate
convo happened. LJ: when? RRS: I don't remember. LJ: NM says you had difficulties because there was a time limit to your PhD. RRS: you are able to get an extension LJ: you'd already had a 4 month extension to your progression RRS: Natasha suggested we put in formal extension bc
of impact of what was happening. LJ: you has scholarship from Dom Rep govt which was stopped bc you weren't adhering to your course. In order to remain in UK you had to continue at the uni RRS: and demonstrate academic progression. LJ: regardless of event, you weren't progressing
with your PhD. RRS: yes but you can always extend time. LJ: you had a suspension from uni...not a punishment, just to pause the time that was running out re your studies. RRS: I think it was punative LJ: what was the punishment LJ: it gave you time to complete your studies
RRS: uni could have offered me an extension. LJ: Bc they didn't give you time, everything else was a punishment? RRS: suspending my studies was a punishment LJ: you say around this time I spoke to media w The Times and radio 4. It was now suggested that I was offered
suspension. Are you suggesting that this was motivated by your talking to the media RRS: yes. LJ: you say no-one explained that if I suspended studies my immigration status would be expected. RRS: yes I looked into it LJ: you didn't need them to talk to you about it...you already
knew it would. RRS: I would have appreciated more conversation about this. LJ: you didn't need it explaining. Is that right? RRS: no...I knew it might but I needed to have them explain it to me in practical terms. Feed frozen.
[Back now - some discussion missed]. LJ: it is clear that your imm status was part of discussion RRS: yes LJ: so you admit you discussed it with them RRS: yes but I brought it up LJ: it was your responsibility to know about your own status RRS: I would have hoped that that uni
would have discussed with me LJ: it was your responsibility. RRS: I had a very superficial understanding. LJ: you went back to Dom Rep for second visit RRS: this was third visit LJ: when back you met with Williamson(?). Email from supervisor to prof wilders -we discussed progress
Raquel agrees that suspension would be appropriate. LJ: everyone agreed that it was the right thing to do RRS: it was the wrong thing to do LJ: Yunta(?) said her only concern is if students are making progress. You were given two months extension to try to resolve things
LJ: you reached decision to suspend after convo with Emma? RRS: no I told Emma I didn't want to suspend. Emma said if you don't suspend I will be chased about this LJ: email from Prof Wilders - 'glad you have agreed to suspension'. Talks about who needs to sign form. This include
Emma and the visa team. Am trying to find out more about visa - team busy at the mo. LJ: do you know what you had to do to apply the suspension RRS: I don't remember. Emma said she wanted me to suspend my studies. LJ: we can see that Prof W had visa situation in mind in this
and the decision to suspend now would mean the clock would stop now. You weren't sure if you wanted to continue with studies - you raised this. Email from prof W next day. Raquel needs to suspend now. Suspension will save 2 months later. RRS: she wanted me to suspend immediately
LJ: to protect you RRS: No. LJ: you said it was your responsibility re visa requirements but you were getting lots of support from everyone. LJ: email from you to Prof W - you made decision to suspend for 60 days. Concerned about extenuating circumstances. RRS: if you look at
options offered to me. I chose option that was less punative. No-one offered to extend. LJ: you were not making progress on your PhD & the academic support plan was to give you tangible goal RRS: they were tangible to me bc nothing was being addressed.
Said if I didn't meet deadlines, strict measures would be taken. I couldn't meet the deadlines bc of what was happening to me. LJ: the uni was following usual process for student who wasn't meeting progress targets. Going back to progress w your complaint.
You submitted new impact statement. Detailed document. do you remember writing it? RRS: I don't remember writing it but it's right here LJ: you describe how support from supervisors was good RRS: they tried their best but there wasn't much they could do LJ: u describe events from
that summer that staff had contacted u in a way u didn't like. You recalled then what had happened? RRS: no LJ: so how did you write it? LJ: you said no risk assessments done on your safety. u say uni ignored requests for risk assessments. U summarise mental health support
u received. RRS: I needed support bc the bullying was affecting me LJ: email from Mrs B to you about risk assessment process. RRS: I called office myself LJ: Mrs B said working towards getting risk assessment. The risk assessment carried out by head of health & safety
about the threat to your safety. You had approached the police who didn't think there was a need to proceed. Threat level low. RRS: yes in 2018 that's what they said LJ: about to start new topic Judge: we will adjourn until 2pm. Mustn't discuss this with anyone (to RRS).
LJ: nearly finished with RRS. Court adjourned.
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
