Thread by @SVPhillimore

Feels like I haven’t been here in years. Let’s hope you live up to your name. #RaquelvBristolUni

Now the Faculty Post Graduate Research Director 'graduate Dean'. you consider requests for extensions and play a pastoral role - yes and a whole lot of policy related things.

Your role is 'oversight' over students?
it's oversight of the processes - not responsible for a student where there were no issues. Issues need to be brought to my attention.

So when we have the infamous open letter in Jan Feb 2018 were you aware at the time
No. I don't think so. No.

No one person co-ordinating the issue that was going on for RRS re open letter?
- I wasn't aware of any of these things! they didn't come into faculty office in any way.

Possible for there to be case meetings or co-ordination meetings in a university context, e.g. mental health?
- yes the wellbeing services might, there are processes for that. MH doesn't come to us, specific policies.

Is there unified co-ordination?
- Not sure what you are asking me about. My understanding from what I have heard here, sounds to me that it was being done by secretary's office, wouldn't come to faculty.

Academic progress can be effected by range of circs and RRS progress effected wasn't it, due to bullying?
- I wasn't aware of bullying and harassment

LJ - these are very composite questions
Judge - I am not making any notes because I am not hearing any evidence. All I know is what this witness doesn't know and it's not helpful.

Witness; If Dr Williamson referred a progress issue it would go to School PGR director who might decide it goes to us, the faculty. This is normal route
Judge - someone needs to approach you and that is when your role comes into it - yes.

AdC: form re seeking extension August 2018, accompanied by a support letter, in the bundle from Dr Williamson. Applications without supporting evidence won't be processed. You signed this form 3 Sep 2018 - yes

AdC - I assume you would have read the important statement of the primary supervisor, sets out harassment and bullying of RRS. includes details with respect to the case she brings against University
Yes - it makes comments

AdC - it says the full written evidence held by Mr Feeney - nod to find out more?
No, I wouldn't have read it that way at all. Assume it was confidential complaint and I would not dream of pursuing. Would take it at face value from the supervisor.

AdC: as an international student, she is especially vulnerable?
- I read it as saying what it says, she has an ongoing case that is upsetting. Relevant to me was the bit towards end where she was requesting extension.

Witness; odd it was request for extension not suspension. I would not have pursued the rest of it.
AdC: but you were aware there was a case involving transactivism causing her distress.
- I am not seeing transactivisim part, o yes...(finds it)

AdC -it says please grant extension to take pressure off RRS. You read that and agreed an extension and sign off on it. Guidance notes attached. describes difference between extension and suspension.

Extension permitted in very broad circumstances?
- yes
Permission to suspend granted in compelling circumstances
-yes

AdC August 2018 this was only 9 months after start of Phd
- I thought it was really odd (as suspensions normally applied for towards the end of a programme) that's why I was surprised.

AdC - in your witness statement you talk about a meeting with RRS, you and second supervisor on 5 Sep 2019 you say unaware of complaint about AA. But you did know!
- I had no recollection when asked to meet with RRS in 2019

- it was a year later, i simply didn't recall there was anything I should be looking at.
AdC - if PhD candidate faces obstacles, reasonable to look at previous apps for suspension or extension?

Witness - this was an informal meeting, not a formal progress meeting. I didn't carry out checks and didn't have records to hand.
AdC - you didn't look into background
- No.

You say its informal but you look at identifying 3 options, not just a vague discussion
- 3 options that emerged during course of discussion. My remit of meeting was to find out what was causing progress problems and is there anything we can do to reinstate progress.

I went in thinking suspension of studies might be good idea, but during conversations other two options came up in different contexts. it wasn't - here are options you must pick one.

That is in Natasha's email which she wrote after meeting. Summarised discussions and RRS concerns, which were also a list. But they didn't appear in the meeting as a list!

AdC: RRS felt like she was presented with three options?
Yes it was a difficult meeting and I felt we were at cross purposes.

AdC Options - stop the clock or withdraw from Bristol, but this would cause problems with visa. Last 2 resulted in her leaving university?
- didn't raise option of withdrawing and re-applying - that was either RRS or Natasha. I thought it was bonkers. I didn't present as option.

AdC - but in your witness statement you say that to let the clock run out and withdraw was 'irrational' - do you agree
- absolutely. That's why i am saying it wasn't something I brought to the meeting. It emerged in the discussion.

AdC - if so irrational, it shouldn't be on emailed list
- I didn't write the list.
AdC - but can't see you asking to remove it from the list?
- the email was a record about what we discussed. I didn't think it a good option.

- I was surprised to get such a detailed email. I made it clear throughout that i thought the first option was the best option.

Now at September and you email to say you were glad RRS decided to apply for an extension. Then you emailed Dr W, L T-M and say 'not sure why initial suspension request on hold. RRS needs to suspend now as not doing academic work'

You go on to say - this needs to be addressed, regardless of whether UK Visa rules allow her to suspend again later. you copy in RRS.
- no its addressed to her. Email is addressed to her.

AdC - this email is sent to RRS. you understand the effect of this was RRS felt she was under pressure to suspend now
- i understand that. I thought it important to suspend now, is because suspensions can't be done retrospectively.

- you can't have period where you are not working because of extenuating circumstances. If you catch Covid you have to suspend then. You can't ask for extra time at the end. We aren't allowed to do that. RRS clear she couldn't work on her PhD at the time.

- I was trying to be clear, you can't get this time back later. You have to suspend now.
AdC - RRS felt she had little option but to suspend?
- yes i thought it was the right thing to do.

AdC - the two months suggested was not long enough as complaint lasted longer
- that's what ended up happening. But two months was all she could get on a student visa. I said get what you can.

Can't see where she was advised to get advice on visa?
- we talked about it in the meeting. We didn't know how long the complaint might take to resolve, 2 months might not be enough but because of visa that's all that is allowed. Academic staff may not advise on visa stuff.

AdC - this is Sep 2019, you had a document from the year before, so its clear 2 month suspension not effective
- that's all i could offer as it's all that is available on a student visa.

AdC - but there have already been two extensions
- I only remember one but I authorised it because of extraordinary circumstances - we don't do this in middle of PhD, very unusual and extra-ordinary thing. In 2019 I wasn't aware of 2018 docs.

In 2019 i was only aware of the very bare bones issues offered by RRS and Natasha. An ongoing event, dragging on, making it very hard for her to work.
AdC -she was not offered an extension in 2019
- correct. I would not have done that.

AdC RRS conveyed to you her anxiety about this
- absolutely, we had conversation with Natasha trying to explain why it wasn't the case. In my view, her view was wrong.

I think the meeting was 45 mins to an hour but I don't remember.
AdC it was a long meeting and full circs explained to you
- that is absolutely untrue, after meeting N and I walked back together and N filled me in on additional details but not very much. in my witness statement

little had been explained at the meeting, she was trying to explain to me why RRS was so angry. i didn't understand. i thought I was trying to help. At cross purposes. She was very resistant, remember vividly. She kept saying 'why do I have to suspend, I didn't do anything wrong'

AdC - so it was clear that RRS felt suspension was as detriment
- yes but she was mistaken in that view. Had to pursue suspension as she couldn't get funding.
AdC - if an extension she wouldn't have had problems with the visa?

- student visa service wouldn't have allowed it to be longer
Judge - you are at cross purposes, you can't have a longer suspension.
- i asked her to check if possible to get extension

AdC - this is all very confusing for someone who doesn't understand visa process. Would an extension have had impact on visa?
- it has a difference impact. In terms of visa would have impact that programme extends beyond your visa, you have to deal with visa office.

you can do something about that at the end. but it didn't occur to me to go there as the problem was immediate one that RRS would lose funding as Emma couldn't certify her progress.

You cannot simply stack up two month suspensions to make a longer one. But if one summer you are ill and next year a different problem, you can have another suspension.

We suggested two sequential suspensions but found it wasn't involved. I don't except this is a bewildering or confusing process. I have to explain this to students a lot and its not difficult to explain. Problem of insufficient suspension is a recurring issue.

AdC - I have no further questions
Judge - are you sure about that? RRS has made some harsh allegations. Are you not going to put them? If you don't, I will.

AdC - you were here for RRS evidence. She was asked about the advice given. RRS formed impression that University trying to get rid of her
Judge - her evidence was "i am accusing all the University to get rid of me and my complaint"

- the suspension, because University doesn't allow it to be longer, would not have lost her the visa. Visa permits it. No threat to visa. That was whole point. We were keeping suspension in limits of what was allowed.

AdC - my note of RRS evidence...
Judge my note 'the motive was to trick you. RRS said it is a fact, I am accusing all the University of trying to trick me'
AdC - my note - 'aim of tricking you to end your right to leave UK. RRS said this is a fact... the whole Uni'

Judge - there is no difference between our notes in terms of the general assertion
LJ: the allegation is pleased at page 38 'procured' - this witness ought to be given opp to answer pleaded allegation as it is so serious.

Judge - put the allegation to the witness
AdC..
Judge - I will ask. were you trying to get rid of her?
- no. Trying to get her to engage with PhD so she won't lose her funding.

I couldn't do it on purpose if i wanted to. The intent was to get her to engage.
Judge - RRS says you were motivated by her going to the media
- I was unaware of that and it had nothing to do with why we met. It was because her supervisor said she wasn't making progress.

Judge - those were the harsh allegations I referred to. Anything else you wanted to ask?
AdC - not engaging with PhD was in context of enormous stress
I absolutely understand that. but being on student visa and having constricted time, doesn't allow you option of not suspending

- it wasn't reasonable of her to say she wasn't engaging. If she wanted a Phd, you don't get extra time for saying 'I am mad at the University and I am not going to do any work'. I wasn't aware of that at the time.

Judge. thank you. i have asked you the questions I wanted to ask.
LJ that concludes evidence on part of University. Do you wish to start submissions?
Judge - no, not fair. Submissions on Monday.
LJ - we have done work on agreed statement re Equality Act

LJ I have a draft anonymity order re AA. Not agreed, but not opposed. AdC wants to add something to it, but i don't share her view, so she will have to tell you why.

Judge - Trial will continue on Monday 14th February 2022. A very significant person in narrative is person we refer to as AA. It is very important to observe AA is not a party or a witness in this case. What AA's participation amounted to can be deciphered from the evidence.

There are certain particular characteristics of AA mentioned in these proceedings and certain events concerning AA and certain interactions which are intimate and could be said rather easily to engage and offend AA's article 8 rights.

IF AA's identity were disclosed generally. Previous case managing Judges have accepted the concern that the documents should be redacted so AA not identified. We know that that task has been carried out without 100% success.

Pleased no one in my court room have not mentioned AA by name. Previous judges have not made a blanket order but obvious aspiration has been to protect AA article 8 rights. Concern if AA identified, their Article 10 rights might be impacted.

In a similar way RRS Article 10 rights had been impacted. Everyone enjoys them. It seems to me that I should make an order formally to make clear what I have said - AA is not to be identified, whether by deliberate or accidental identification.

These proceedings entirely in open court. No one asking now for 'secret evidence' - this is only about withholding a name. With that in mind I am minded to make the order sought by LJ. I acknowledge RRS has not consented but I credit her for not opposing. Very sensible.

I will make the order which on my reading appears to achieve all of my objectives, to secure the anonymity of AA.
Cannot start before 10.30.
Judgment will be reserved. That is something I can guarantee.