Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to Day 6, the final day of Raquel Rosarino Sanchez's case against Bristol University. We're expecting closing submissions and then judgement will be reserved. We're waiting to begin.

#RaquelvBristolUni

Catch up with Day 5 here:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1492135559300624387?s=20&t=wSnO3xbHG6IFLrD8dfrt2g

A reminder that Alice De Coverley (AC) is barrister for Raquel Rosario Sanchez (RRS)
Laura Johnson (LJ) is barrister for Bristol University (BU)
The Judge is Alexander Ralton (AR).

#RaquelvBristolUni

Witnesses who may be referred to are: Keith Feeney (KF), Jutta Weldes (JW), Laura Trescothick-Martin (LTM)

#RaquelvBristolUni

The case has yet to begin and I've been informed that the case in slightly overrunning and apologies for the delay. We'll be with you as soon as the court begins.

The clerk has confirmed we are set to begin at 11.15.

#RaquelvBristolUni

The court begins. AR discusses documents he has received. LJ starts with preliminary observations which states that BU does not express an opinion to the political disagreement. AR states that all sides don't observe article 10 rights.

LJ states no findings were found on AA and doesn't defend the allegations against them. LJ seeks to draw out facts that are important and identify where there's differences if view the court will need to decide upon.

LJ states she will discuss the negligence claim and Equality Act
LJ as she will state facts that there is a disagreement and the claimant made a complaint. LJ references it. AR draws it up again to refer to.

LJ : you can see claimant wanted to file a formal complaint and concerned about threatening language. Nowhere in the document expressly states member of staff. Claimant was asked what procedure she was seeking.

LJ says RRS wanted to stop the allegations and the malicious rumours. LJ states upon hearing RRS these rumours are within her Witness statement

LJ putting forward good behaviour policy and this was the basis the complainant used to found her complaint. LJ is going through the policy.

LJ points to the policy explaining the steps to resolve a complaint and a flow chart which displays it. LJ states if the complaint can't be resolved it'll be referred as to whether to take disciplinary action.

LJ states in regards to the chart, it's a clear process despite RRS saying is was unclear. LJ goes through further actions RRS took in regards to complaint. LJ says BU being responsible for not sanctioning a student isn't RRS's complaint.

LJ asks a document be turned up because the complainant now criticises it.
LJ references a feb statement by RRS who denied allegations publically and that wanted the case to be better known.
AR: the font is challenging

LJ reads through the Feb document...'while this event was not affiliated with BU this was an opportunity to state our freedom of speech policy. BU don't tolerate (too fast)' LJ states RRS statement does not reflect this.

LJ states RRS said she was pleased with the letter then looked at it in a different letter. LJ is showing RRS statements of gratitude for the open statement. LJ says RRS then says people should account for their actions.

LJ states RRS asks that the complaint is dealt with the seriousness it deserves. LJ refers to again to the flowchart of the complaints procedure.

LJ states 'RRS asks for psychological support and your honour will recollect she was given an appointment. We know RRS had had a meeting and it was good but then wrote a confusing email the following day...'yes our meeting appeared useful'...

(Cont) using the word appeared suggests it wasn't. LJ reads out more statements where RRS says she is confused by the procedure.

LJ: 'the way RRS expressed herself, the Professors throught the situation was ongoing. We know the matter was referred to KF and all of this is referred to in the flowchart.' In June two students were summoned to a disciplinary meeting.

LJ: RRS said that only one student was in a disciplinary meeting. There was insignificant evidence for disciplinary committee but enough for one student. Advice was given by KF about giving evidence at the hearing

LJ: KF tells the claimant what is happening and updates about AA meeting. He also sets up clearly that if RRS was to give evidence, AA would be permitted to ask questions. I ask the court to consider KF evidence is right and claimants should not be accepted

LJ: here s an email about the confidentiality of the hearing. Your honour will recollect there was no rule at this point. LJ reads a statement about it from BU about confidentiality and data protection

LJ: perfectly reasonable stance for BU to take. The hearing was arranged and took place, despite there was an initial request to postpone. It was a serious allegation a state relates to what measures were put in llace to protect that claimant.

LJ says the court will recall an unsatisfactory response from RRS about what she experienced on her way to the event. She kept referencing the pamphlet and it's clear she hadn't seen it. It's clear KF provided steps to protect RRS and avoided any protesters

LJ: KF talks of the mild protest. It was for RRS to check her submission and that it was accurate. The claimant couldn't give any basis AA produced this pamphlet. It's become a significant feature the complainant complains about hearings and the barrister

LJ: I reject the submission that being questioned by a barrister than by a student...so I say there's nothing in that crictism.

LJ: your honour will recollect the claimant gave a willingness to give evidence again. LJ talks of KFs involvement and that he followed procedure.

LJ talks of the rearrangement of the event and the court can see a date was lost as KF was unavailable. A suggestion was this was an unreasonable concern to have. Its perfectly reasonable BU wouldn't want to upset people happy graduation

LJ: (missed a section) here's the claimant's letter Jan 2019, some further complaints about AA, then turn over there's a summary where RRS was having an effect on her performance. RRS states can't untangle the process from her work. Feels she's campaigning for women and girls

LJ: but not engaging with her PHD, no mention of particular acute mental health concerns or risks

LJ: the deputy vice chancellor writes the terms of proceeding with disciplinary process. The claimant suggests not sanctioning trans activists and could not be further from this letter.

LJ: the next period of time is important about RRS telling BU her feelings about the process. Email RRS states a dramatic change in her mental health. LJ says its normal to be nervous.

LJ: RRS then talks about she's going to be occupied and she's meeting with supervisor and that might be healthy to talk things through. No suggestion claimant was at risk of psychological harm

LJ: AA lawyer tried to change the meeting and BU refused and AA put forward mentalhealth and it was adjourned. RRS suggests it was then her mentahealth deteriorated. Court needs to look at the risks for mental health and what caused any deterioration

LJ: it's clearly ot something in the university's control and there'd been nothing from claimant to say she was at risk and she'd dealt with the previous. Her feelings fell short of psychiatry issues

LJ: the courtesy have to consider what the mentalhealth was at risk time. She was able to send an eloquent but angry email. Nothing in the letter about mental health collapse she alledges

LJ talks of RRS going abroad and then that her case had been discontinued. There was only one attendance with GP and important for the personal injury aspect of the claim. The claimant must prove the suffering was caused by a breach of duty by BU

LJ: we've looked at entry in July and the submission is quite clearly a multi factorial complaint.

LJ: all that is said of the defendant and says she gone to police who referred her back to BU.

LJ: medical history, unusual evidence to GP and blamed recollection gap...she agreed she had sought mental health support in the past. It will need to be considered if that affects her credibility

LJ: RRS was able to give an article to the Times. This is the first time here she asks for risk assessment. She could start a platform for feminism

LJ: the statement in September was detailed and closely analysed about rules and the law. To be fair she describes a difficult time to process these past 20 months. She'd been contacted via personal email not just uni email and still no risk assessment

LJ: we see her complaints about being cross examined and describes an 'unexpected experience'. Then a further ref to mental health support. Aside by support from supervisors and counselling services. I needed increased support due to the bullying I experienced

LJ: the reason here is the background of the complaint not anything specific that had happened. You'll recollect I asked her about the risk assessments. There's no account at all about the dramatic effects of may. That may have been something to describe.

LJ outlines RRS: Passionate held beliefs although appears to impact her and inclined to see influence of political climate even when not the case.
Been times when RRS evidence unimpressive
About memory loss in 2019
Evidence to JW and lack of evidence to make allegation.

LJ continued: She maintained them throughout questions
I don't ask her supportive supervisor as they are her opinions. Her evidence was useful about AA.
The defence were candid and straightforward and good grace and consistency.

(All very fast)
LJ: there's not a shred of evidence to support the contention that the PCP existed and no basis the court can concede on this point. In my submission the evidence falls so far short it's wouldn't be a sound fiding for the court to make.

LJ: I assume AC will rely on another case and its a completely different set of circumstances from this case. On every occasion when the case was being abandoned BU continued with it.

LJ: It's clear the case wasn't terminal for anyone AA's justification. BU chose to support medical evidence why it didn't continue. The claimant must prove disadvantage on the basis of characteristic

LJ: second point is victimisation...it's the defendent's position that list were not protected acts. The other protected acts are more difficult.

LJ: then TRS has a very general complaint and within the process. The detriment has to be less favourable to her because it doesnt go the way that she wants it. The more serious are complaint against graduate Dean. And a distress to the individual.

LJ: I say about this statement it's scandalous and untrue. I found the harassment claim difficult to understand.

LJ: RRS is claiming psychiatric injury. RRS is referring to a completely different type of loss. And it's an entirely different question

LJ goes through psychiatric injury and the defendent had a duty. The case is woefully unclear and its important to look at what her written case is. It's headed negligent and personal injury. There's no plead of contract claim.

LJ: the most I can draw out of the schedule is two complaints, one is time the complaint took and the to AA's behaviour. No plea of responsibility and this must be clearly pleased.

LJ goes through a House of Lords decision from 1989. (Too fast)

LJ states the case is about police officers and not the complainant but its clear the HOL view was psychological injury was not a plausible action

LJ goes to another page. Taking a while to draw it up on screen for AR.
LJ: I'm sureyour honour will recollect the case Barbara and somerset. I draw attention to number 1. There's nothing magic about psychiatric injury in this

LJ goes through the document further (too fast) it hasn't been followed by any other cases with enthusiasm.

The claimant has to identity that she was owed a duty that wasn't followed. (Too fast)

LJ: pratley and Surrey County Council case...there's a number of cases make similar observations. (Too fast) LJ reads parts of the case

LJ is reading the judge's decision that there was a difference between psychiatric injury and disappointment at outcomes.

LJ states she is anticipating what SC will bring up in her submission. Even if the claimant was given benefit of the doubt, factually BU had no reason to know what was going to happen

LJ: this takes us to the duty of case that the claimant needs to declare the nature of the duty of care she was owed

LJ: in the case of Bradford Smart and case of bullying ...(too fast) and it's completely irrelevent)

LJ: looking at Bradford Smart
AR reminds of time
LJ: I'd ask the court to invite 2 principles and its not enough to find bullying. Can we stop there
AR: need to make sure your learned friend has enough time.

AR adjourned to court until 2pm, stating we will go on until 4.30pm.