Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon & welcome back to the afternoon session of Day 5 of #RaquelvBristoluni. The court is due to start at 2pm. We hope technical difficulties will be kept to a minimum and thank you for bearing with us. Catch up with this morning here:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1492083127686242326?s=20&t=jL8qX9JuVC0E_a2fpp_PCQ

Another reminder of abbreviations: Alice de Coverly (AC) barrister to claimant Raquel Rosario Sanchez (RRS),
Laura Johnson (LJ), barrister to Bristol University (BU)
Alexander Ralton (AR), Judge
Jutta Weldes (JW), Witness

JW is in the witness box and we are waiting for court to begin.

AC: I understand you have a colloquial name within the institution...you consider request for extentions
JW: I do a lot of things on the extension side
AC: is it fair tor say your role is oversight role?
JW: an oversight role of processes

AC: you have an oversight of processes prescribed, issues should be brought to your attention
JW: yes
AC: are you aware of letter January 2019
JW: I don't think so

AC: did you know RRS who was named I the letter
JW: no
AC: it then blurs that there was no one person dealing with this issue, coordinating any of these responses
JW: but I didn't know
AC: but you were in an oversight role

AC: and you might have a case meeting about say a student with mental health issues
JW: they come under their own policy that doesn't come to us
AC: ...so there wasn't coordination
JW: I don't know what you're asking

AC: that there wasn't a single person coordinating it
JW: (too fast) it wasn't my role
AC: it's fair to say RRS was being bullied
JW: I wasn't aware
(RJ thinks questioning is confusing. Judge hasn't heard any evidence only what witness doesn't know)

AR: so someone needs to approach you (JW) before you perform your role
JW: yes

AC: we know this letter existed when seeking an extension in 2018 and was accompanied by support letter, appears in bundle from Dr Williamson. And this suppoeting statement would have attached the extention request. Says applications without evidence will not be processed.

AC: you then sign this form on Sept 2018 and I assume you would have e read the important statement attached by the primary supervisor
JW: of course
AC: of course and in that (reads letter containing 'is targeted by trans activists')
JW: yes

JW: no I wouldn't have read it that way...I would take this as face value from the supervisor and that has caused stress
AC: and the next thing 'from the outset this has been distressing just having arrived at the uni' so Dr. Nicholson talks about RRS international status

JW: I was being asked if there was grounds for an extention and the only odd part was it was an extention rather than a suspension.
AC: you were aware there was a case of trans activism against her
JW: I'm not seeing it
AC takes witness through statement

AC: in light of reading that you grant an extension
JW: yes
AC: where it talks about extensions, there's a very broad range to grant extensions. (AC reads the extensions reasons)
JW: thats why I thought it was really odd because we don't use extensions in these sorts of things

AC: in your statement you then speak about a meeting you had with the claimant and the 2nd supervisor. So it shows you know at risk point
JW: and as I said I had no recollection that I had had an interaction to RRS. It was a year before and I simply didn't recall

JW: it was an informal meeting because of concern they couldn't certify progress. I would have to ask people to produce records
AC: you say it was informal but you brought up 3 options with the valiant
JW: they weren't presented like options and all emerged in a different context

AC reads the statement JW writes she presents 3 options.
JW explains it wasn't a presentation
AC: you're aware the claimant believes she was presented with the 3 options

AC relays the 3 options (too fast)
JW: they came up at different times
AC: fair to say A and C were raised
JW: but B wasn't raised by me, that was raised by Natasha or Raquel. It was a summary of a set of discussions

AC: you say now it was 'bonkers' but you suggest one of the options was irrational here. The option repeats itself again. If it had been so irrational why was it a option
JW: no but I thought the email was a record of what we discussed. I was surprised to get a detailed report

AC takes JW through other emails from JW to Dr Williamson and others. AC describes emails sent to the claimant and seems JW felt she was under pressure to suspend now. JW explains suspensions can't happen retrospectively.

JW: what I was trying to say is you can't get it back later and that's why I emphasised 'now'.
AC: you advised her to do that
JW: yes I thought that was the right thing to do

JW: my point was get the 2 months because you can't get them later
AC: and in this email it says repeatedly it needs to be addressed. I don't see anywhere RRS is advised
JW: uni staff should not give advice, it just so happened I know it was 2 month

AC: were you not clear in that yourself
JW: no I was suggesting to her please go to the advisors office because I can't advise.

AC: you say you didn't know how long it was going to take, this Sept 2019 and we've already spent time saying you had a doc from Dr Williamson a year ago
JW: I didn't...
AC: but it's clear a 2 months suspension wouldn't have been enough

AC: you say that's the only way possible but we know two extensions have been offered.
JW: it's a very unusual thing

JW: I do not remember about the 2018 documentation at the time and all I knew in 2019 was the skeleton bare bones. I knew there was a complaint dragging on
AC: it's right she was not on suspension
JW: I wouldn't have done that

JW: we had the conversation why this was not the case.
AC: how long was the meeting
JW: 45 mins to an hour, don't remember
(Missed)
JW: that's absolutely untrue. (JW describes leaving the meeting)

JW: natasha was trying to explain to me why RRS was so angry and I thought I was trying to help and it felt like we were crossed purposes. I remember vividly it came up 3 times 'why do I get suspended when I have done nothing wrong'

AC: so this was a suspension for her?
JW: yes but she was mistaken in that view
AC: with the suspension there would be immediate implications with her visa
JW: it wouldn't have
AC: if longer it would have impacted visa?

AC: this whole process is very confusing for a layperson, would you agree
JW: I don't know the visa process very well
AC: but it would have an impact
JW: you have to deal with the visa office for that and if you extend that you have to do something about that.

JW: Emma was concerned that we couldn't certify progress to the funder at that point
AC: reads out part of JW's statement
JW: you can't stack up 2 month suspensions (she describes this)
AC: do you not think this is a bewildering issue
JW: no

JW: I have to explain this to students a lot and it's easy to understand

AC has no further questions.
AR asks if AC is sure about that.
AR: your client came up with some harsh allegations about this witness, are you not going to put these to these witness? If you don't I will as open questions.

AR reads RRS accusations (too fast)
(AC asks JW again about the suspensions and visa impacts)
(JW explains about the visa office and what they say about the 2 months/60 days)

AC: RRS says you tried to trick her
AR: (reads RRS accusation again) I'm accusing all that they're trying to trick me to get rid of me out of the UK
(There is a discrepancy with the statements, Judge says its a small difference)

AR: what did you want to get from her?
JW: to get her to engage with her PHD and the funding

JW: I understand why does said she didn't want to engage
AC: wad that reasonable?
JW: no because you don't get extra time for being angry at the university

No more further questions for this witness.

There is a discussion with the judge about using the time moving forward.

LJ has a draft to show the judge about AA, and is passing up for consideration. AC wants to add something but LJ did not agree so AR must deal with that.

AC, LJ and AR are discussing the order considering AA.

AR: The trial of this case will continue on Monday 14th February 2022. A very significant person is AA and it's very important to observe AA is not a party or witness in this case.

AR: What AA participation amounted to can be deciphered from the evidence before the court and as is necessary for the purpose of these proceedings.

AR: However there are certain particular characteristics of AA mentioned within these proceedings, and certain events concerning AA, & certain interactions AA has had, which are intimate and could be said rather easily to engage and offend AA's article rights if AA were disclosed

AR: Previous case managing judges appeared to accepted the concern that the documents should at least be redacted so that AA is not identified. We know that that task has been carried out but without 100% success.

AR: I'm please noone in my courtroom has mentioned AA by name. I acknowledge previous judges have gone as far as blanket...preserving AA rights has been the obvious aspiration.

AR: There is also a concern if AA were identified their article 10 rights might be impacted upon outside these proceedings if identified.

In a similar way the claimants article 10 rights have been impacted. Everyone can enjoy article 10 and indeed article 8 rights.

AR: It seems to me I should make an order making clear that AA is not to be identified whether by deliberate ID or accidental ID. These court proceedings have been held in open court in their entirety, noone is asking for any secret evidence for the court.

AR: This is only about withholding a name nothing else.
With that in mind, I make the order sought by LJ on behalf of the defendent. I'm aware the claimant hasn't objected to this order, which is very sensible.

AR: Therefore I will make this order, which in my reading would appear to achieve all my objectives to secure anonymity of AA.
Email me the copy and I'll check it over and I'll pass to the special issue team and also for publication. That's all I want to say about the order.

AR: As far as submissions go, I expect to receive them by Monday at 10.30.
By all means email me anything you need to. For the avoidance of any doubt, judgement will be reserved and that is something you can guarantee.
Court adjourned.

[Thank you for following us this week and see you Monday for the final day of #RaquelvBristolUni .

Huge thanks to live tweeters @GoodyActually @TerfyMcTerfy & everyone at @tribunaltweets team for their work this week. Have a great weekend & I'll see you on Monday at 10.30am ]