Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to Day 5 of @8RosarioSanchez case against Bristol University. The court adjourned early yesterday for the claimant's team to digest new documents, catch up here:

bit.ly/3BeqkgZ

A reminder that Alice de Coverly (AC) is barrister for Raquel Rosmarino Sanchez (RRS) and Laura Johnson (LJ) is barrister for Bristol Uni (BU). The Judge is Alexander Ralton (AR) The court is due to start at 10.30.

Senior University Lawyer, Keith Feeney (KF) is in the Witness box and will continue to give evidence. We're just waiting to get underway.

The court is in session.
AR: All rise and be seated
LJ: over night there's been two communications with KF, when you see it you'll see why I can't relay the contents. I think KF had been quite upset and I'd like to check he's all right.

LJ: are you happy for me to reassure KF?
AR: how long do you need?
LJ: ten minutes
AR: OK well let's get underway at 10.50am

While we are waiting, a reminder that Raquel's statement is published here in the knowledge of, and with consent from, the judge AR

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1492058726521520156?s=20&t=IoTOfLQAQyKzr96oBa_hzw

We are continuing with KF's evidence now.
AC: I will not be very long with you. (Bad sound) we spoke yesterday about trans activists being students at the time, spoke about Jam jar & protesting Women's Place UK. & the people who attend those events are feminists
KF: I believe so

AC: the claimant did speak of harassment of feminists...(unclear sound bad)
KF: that's what she expressed
AC: would you also agree the type of people on the receiving end would be women
KF: I presume so

KF: one of the difficulties at defining harassment
AC: how would you define it
KF: We used the normal definition
AC: would you say harassment would be linked to basis of sex
KF: gender and sex were not relevant it was conduct based

AC: their conduct though was language that expressed Violence against women?
KF: Yes
AC: a lot of pressure from activists?
KF: from both sides
(Missed)
AC: would you make the same decisions again
KF: yes we'd comply with regulations

AC: there's no policy for the protection of feminists students is there
KF: not that I know of. Any hostility towards a political procedure would go down the complaints procedure
AC: but no specific policy

KF: (missed)that's an argument I don't think is relevent
AC finishes
LJ: at the end of your evidence you had a summary and I want to make sure we have the contents of emails in mind not the summary

LJ: you were asked about an email eaely 2018, do you remember that to RRS?
KF: yes
LJ: we see RRJ who was going to be present in the hearing and asking if she could bring someone
KF: Yes

LJ: an email on May 8th RRS refers to a meeting and you remember it.
KF: yes
LJ: what was the purpose
KF: to explain the hearing and answer any questions she had

KF: the main question she asked was if she can keep her evidence secret
I explained it wasn't possible and the procedure....and the accused (AA) was most likely to suffer the most consequences

Lj: when you active involvement in this end?
KF (missed)
LJ: you just been asked about attitudes towards students and asked about the pressure and where it was coming from. You said it was both sides, can you be clear who?

KF: both side were from senior management and those outside the University (sound is bad and was missed, LJ end questioning)
AR says he has no further questions and KF is released.

Laura Trescothick-Martin (LTM) has been sworn in. LJ is asking about her statement.
(AC is questioning but the sound is too bad to make it out. We are asking the technical team to sort this out)

AC: ten minutes later AG replies to you and ask the venue is changed as there is a huge risk. And so we have 2 issues being raised, security and reputation. You also tell 2 other people saying again the student being disciplined has threatened to name people online.

AC reads the parts of the letter which are from security.
AC: there were protesters at this meeting
LTM: I don't know
AC: you also had a convo with the lawyers for AA. There are 2 questions. You respond differently I'm wondering am I missing something
LTM: I don't know

AC: in your reply you say whole the regulations don't refer to the procedure, all procedures will be kept confidential. The uni has to respect the data protection of students. So you give a reminder here about confidentiality but I can't see a reminder about date and time of that

AC: there also no reference of a preliminary meeting with AA
LTM: I don't do any of the disciplinaries at all. We send letters out of outcomes

LJ is asking LTM about correspondence between her and the security team. (The sound has diminished again, I'm trying to make out what I can, apologies)

AC: Mr R states 'this should have been checked before' (about security and dates for an event)
LTM: I just booked it like any other disciplinary committee, when it was clear they'd be protested so it wasn't the right date to choose.

AC: but you'd know there was going to be protesters
LTM: no I didn't know, it was a suprise for all if us there were protesters
AC: surprised for all of you
LTM: for me it was

LTM: I didn't know about the early stages of the case...it was early June the FB post came to my attention and I realised there might be a problem
AC: did someone tell you the context
LTM: (unclear)

AC: you can see senior members of uni accept its unacceptable. This was after a series of attempts to hold the meeting
LTM: yes but they hadn't worked

AC: in Feb you advise the outcome will happen by the end of Feb. And you can see their solicitors are chasing dates.

LTM: yes
AC: then we have further comms in june/July. I couldn't see much discussion about availability in april/May
LTM: next day was may 15 but it didn't go ahead

AC: you were in the hearing
LTM: I'm not sure actually, I can't remember.
AC: then the matter is adjourned and the by June the devision was made to terminate it

LTM: yes
AC: and I don't see any thing where AA may have been sanctioned
AC: do you think having protesters outside the meeting would be intimidating
LTM: yes

AC: and you agree that being cross examined is intimidating
LTM: I wouldn't know until now

AC talks of a letter whereby RRS has asked for assessment (missed)
LTM: I don't know
AC: if I was to say in evidence she asked several times for this
LTM: I'm aware thats what she says in the statement but I have no evidence of this

AC: (refers to document) are you aware you gave this advice
LTM: I think this advice was given by security and police. I don't remember. I think I remember them giving the advice previously but can't point to anything

AC: and you can see the risk assessment isn't done until 2020.
LTM: yes that's the date it says
AC: let's look at bundle 3, notes from meeting and you're not on the attendee list.
LTM: must have the day I wasn't there

AC: do you remember being at the second here, your name is there
LTM: yes I was note taking
[No more questions. Witness exits]

New witness Jane Bridgwater (JB) is sworn in. LJ begins questioning.

LJ is taking JB through some of the same documents at KF. LJ is asking if JB wrote up some of the letters. LJ understands JB wasn't involved in decision making
JB: no

AR doesn't understand how the defendant could be criticised for not taking part in the decision. Are you saying its part of your case the decision makers made a wrong decision?
AC: in it being terminated
AR asks clarity

AC: the day if the disciplinary hearing you acted as clerk. Having considered A's case there was no case to answer. What I can see is we don't hear back for 33 or 4 months
LTM: I believe...(pause)
AC: there's no explanation is there
LTM: no

(AC is questioning LTM on a letter, the sound is bad and LTM voice is too low.)
LTM: the letter explains what is happening but not why
AC: you can appreciate that's unclear

LTM: I didn't think about that at the time
(AC brings up another letter)
AC: and this explains concern with respect to security and they also explain issues with freedom of speech

AC: as far as I can see in this letter there's nothing that refers to AA.
JB (not LTM apologies for the confusion, I'm confused because of sound and it's hard to follow) is too quiet to hear.

AC is continuing to ask LB about various correspondence. AC is clarifying she can see it and reporting whether she can remember. (A lot is missed with sound issues)

AC: Would you agree in this it focuses on regulation 9 rather than grapple with any of the issues of freedom of speech and trans rights.
JB: (unclear)
AC: there's no mention of grappling with the other rights
JB: no

AC: it's right isn't it within this email copying you in, that there's no mention of AA's mental health. And within this the reason for the termination speaks about 224, uni obligation is to ensure free speech...(too fast)

AC: this is a different conclusion to what we had
JB: (reads aloud the correspondence) so that's supporting Raquel and that is a general statement about free speech. I don't understand what you're getting at

AC: hey could have just said the issues were confidential they didn't need to explain about free speech. We know there were discussions about whether to continue
JB: I don't remember that
AC: were you in court JF talked of this

AC: in reality the proceedings were terminated because of AA reliance on freedom of speech
JB: that's not true

AC: within the email you apologise don't you
JB too quiet
AC: you accepted at rather point the process had become deeply confusing
JB: ...(too quiet) to me the process is quite clear (too quiet)

JB: it was clearly not the case itvwas clear
AC: you're an experienced lawyer and you know this process well
JB: I thought itvwas clear
AC: bit of a shame the claimant is confused and distressed about what was going on
JB: I think that was because of the delay

AC: and that's a shame
JB: yes
AC: and you can see why that would lead to mental health difficulties for my client
JB: I couldn't comment

JB: it was very clearly a delay
AC : you're copied into another email Aug 2019, a reply from RRS, we can it says 'I cannot stress enough my most important concern is my safety."

AC: (reading) "There's a perpetrator who's behaviour has escalated over 20 months. I was led to believe this issue would be addressed."
RRS was lead to believe the core issues would be addressed.

JB is too quiet.
AC: the reply also talks about a risk assessment RRS asked for twice, one to deal with AA and one for campus
You say you will contact the dept of health and safety. Was that a reflection of uni thinking she was safe whereas she thought she was unsafe?

JB: that's not what I said
AC: you say here (reads out)
JB: I'd need to see the correspondence
AC: I'm trying to be fair here
JB: oh absolutely
AC: but it comes across like that

AC: so RRS says she wants to go no further without a risk assessment. Can you see that
JB: yes
AC: so back to your email,
JB: from my perspective I'm asking her why she needs the risk assessment before

AC: A had assessed everything and she'd had that discussion in 2018
AC: so noone in uni thought the risk assessment wasn't needed
JB: she was told seek advice
AC: and the onus is on the claimant not the uni?

JB: I was under the impression she was advised by security & police and they thought the risk was the same as 2018
AC: there's no report if police saying that
AR: ur spending a lot if time on this
AC: I need to
AR: I'm not saying how u use your time just bringing to you attention

AC: thesr are the only documents we have from the client about police, we don't have any other meeting recorded anywhere in the bundle, or risk assessments
JB: I don't think I can help you

AC: fo Al thing I want to ask you, in ur witness statement, you can see claimant appealed the decision, and it goes on to say 'by this stage the claimant has refused the suggestion'
JB: absolutely no (too quiet) AC ends questioning. LJ begins her questioning.

LJ: I draw your attention to a paragraph about an incident about an event related to the claimant, then later there's her understanding of what the complaint was. There's references to (too fast) and much more serious allegation. Then we see the response

LJ: this is what you're copied onto, I'm concerned about some of your emails...I've also read the security report...she claims the individual removed from the meeting wasn't the student referred to by miss Hestor

LJ: (continues reading letter) ...looking at this... do you think this context is free speech
LB: absolutely
LJ: you thank ester for her detailed reply
LJ ends questioning
AR releases the witness

The next witness called is Professor Jutta Weldes (JW)

JW is sworn in.
LJ: you've got your witness statement. Have you had a chance to read it recently?
Jw: yes
LJ: you raised one issue in where the claimant is up to in relation to her PHD

AR: it's unfortunate when a case evolves inside a case

LJ: can you tell us what is this document
JW: an extention request from RRS
LJ: we can see claimant's signature on Aug 2018. Supervisor signature is Williamson and Dr Foster, below we see your name and signature
Jw: yes

LJ: You don't mention it in your statement
JW: I completely forgot it happened.. I simply forgot about it and wasn't aware it existed

LJ: how did it come to your attention
JW: I listened to Williamson and I was surprised by that...I went back and asked if there was an extension request. Which is embarrassing because I had totally forgotten about it

LJ: if you look at the bundle, that's the documentation
JW: this document was produced by Emma Williamson and this was a supervisors supportive statement that was the only thing said when I asked for more info

LJ: back to the statement, your describing the meeting with RRS in Sept 2019 and you say I was unaware if the claimants complaint against the student AA. Do you remember being unsolved in the extention request then?

JW: I had absolutely no recollection
LJ: how many students do you deal with
JW: several hundred altogether
LJ: what's happening in terms of this with BU
JW: I received a request late last week that was inaccurate, we all agreed to 18 month extention just a matter if paperwork

AC: it would be helpful to stop now...
AR: I have no objection and we will have have a short adjournment for lunch. (Reminds JW under oath)
Until 2pm please.
Court is adjourned