Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon and welcome back to Day 6, the final day of Raquel Rosario Sanchez's case against Bristol University. Proceedings due to start at 2pm. Catch up with this morning here:

#RaquelvBristolUni

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1493171556809334784?s=20&t=d9Ecet3n1u4IKy97VizpZw

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

#RaquelvBristolUni

The court has begun.
LJ is continuing her submission about and a offers a case that comes become Tindle.
LJ is looking at [cases: Michael's and Robinson] about Duty of care and assumption of responsibility.

LJ: is content it's an accurate summary of the law . LJ talks of 3 cases with aspect various duties of care. LJ reads the findings of Lord Toulson and Reid in regards to Duty of Care and theatre of negligence

LJ reads Lord Reid's findings on the case study on Duty of care. Even though there are statutory powers that take steps but they don't take rise to a duty of care

LJ continues to read statements about statutory powers. Refers to [Case: Nefarrus and Steel].

LJ explains Sienne and Pool findings which is the lead authority on presumption of responsibility. LJ explains these cases, which aren't RRS sort of case, have special relationships within them such as schools.

LJ concludes that the RRS claim aren't arguable. LJ says just having contact with a student does not mean there is an assumption of responsibility. Specialised info must be specified because duty of care can be relied

LJ is still outlining the case study and reminds us of precedence and we need to look at the law as it stands as to whether a duty of care is owed.

LJ: a quick tour of these case takes me to this point. Generally speaking defendents do not owe a duty of care to prevent harm. The exceptions are specified Teffarus and Steel. The Dorset yacht scenario. A case that's a category of its own.

LJ: this is not an exception case and we're left with an assumption of responsibility. LJ discusses another case study and adds the other cases establish the same point. She hopes AR can read them at some point

LJ: adds another JD and Berkshire case study. There was no duty of careto the parents but was to the children which is relevant to the 'special relationship'. This is a novel case, it's clear int my submissions duty of care could not be owed

LJ: the sheer obvious problems with the nature of the allegation serve to show a duty of care could not be owed to RRS. No evidence AAposed any threat to claimant.

LJ: there's a thinness to the argument and none of the points aren't remotely arguable. In terms of breech, AC depends on the offer of compensation and this was standard of BU.

LJ: I say for the reasons I've set that even if DOC was established the defendent is not responsible and actions were outside BU control.

LJ: [references Liverpool City Council & Irwin] we say the contract claim doesn't take the matter any further. So I say on No duty of care, no breach, no contractual obligation, no breach. Expert evidence does not tie claimants injury.
AR is anxious about time

LJ states AC will have the same time as her.

LJ points out various statements for Judges attention. Asks AR to read with some care, the expert was asked what he meant by gaslighting and expert took it to mean targeting on social media.

LJ: The expert says Bristol University is not the sole cause of mental health diagnosis. I invite the court to be critical as to whether RRS was suffering from medical injury at all

LJ: you have my skeleton arguments and interests of MH and decide it is compensatory. We say whatever was happening to her was minor and not due to the defendent

LJ: if there is any attributable injury at all it must fall into the uncritical level. There's no evidence the claimant couldn't work on her PHD due to to mental health. She could do other things and doesn't give rise to the alleged loss

LJ ends submission. AC starts her claimant's closing submission. AC points to footnotes. AC highlights the defendent has produced a supplementary bundle and how remarkable that was in the middle of the trial.

AC will go through evidence then legal framework. The claimant brought multifaceted claims. A young woman's psychological integrity has been damaged by a prominent education institution

AC: My claimant seeks damages and a vindication of defendent's failures. Also wants recognition she did nothing wrong. She was not using violent language or silencing anyone. Claimant was standing up for her sex based rights. Claimant is mindful of thanks to those who supported

AC: the claimant has set out what she considered to be the case with 1000 page documents from defendents. She is an international student and vulnerable because of immigration status. Uni is bewildering to a UK student too

AC: claimant believes she has been failed. The misogynist slur TERF was reduced to 'unpleasantness'. Its clear the uni staff were engaged in this from the outset. The defendent wouldn't have behaved like this if not thought entitled to.

AC: one male member edited and propagated the open letter to all members of the gender violence research group and falsely denigrated her as a racist and a bigot

AC: RRS has not made of the reasons AA case was terminated...reasons came years later. RRS acknowledges she was grateful at times it is clear she is not at other times. She often apologised without legal advice.

AC: she also talks about counselling having to relay the story over and over again and the source of the story was not being g address. She was desperate for help and aught the media and is criticised for doing extra circiculum events but RRS didn't want to become catatonic.

AC: RRS still doesn't understand why the uni has not dealt with it Astley should have done, her thoughts appear in the bundle. She spoke in respect to suspension but in this case it would have a disproportionate effect. Dr Williamson resigned from the uni earlier this year

AC: looking at what the defence said in examination. KF is notable he didn't choose to bring any other senior authority to give evidence, instead offered 3 lawyers. KF accepted it was uni's responsibility to protect RSS and those who want to speak on matters that concern them

AC: KF agreed with broad principles and claccepted the woman's place avent was about the equality act and those attending were predominately women and feminists. He accepted those on receiving end of transactisvism are women

SC: also KF accepted that there was a sustained culture of violence at the university...AA was one of the students wearing a balaclavas and threatening women in the room. KF accepted that would be 'unpleasant', he wouldn't accept another term

AC: it's a matter of fact that AA raised article 10 rights in being a trans activist. KF accepted BU needed to revise its policy and disciplinary process

AC: it's also a matter of fact that the early response was to take no action at all in regards to RRS complaint. BU decided to use the complaint as a learning opportunity rather than address it.

AC: KF accepted difference in style between student union and a qualified barrister and wasn't told about giving evidence in front of AA. KF also accepted she could have attended by video and that would be more sensitive. BU accept that too

AC: it's also accepted by KF the protests that took ace could appear intimidating and worrying for the claimant. KF accepted he'd met with the chair of equality group and issues were raised about cancelling AAs complaint

AC: I also highlight the delays that KF accepted were long. No emails exist to explain rhis. We have no understanding why AA and FG were selected and no other students were

AC: KF also accepts a pamphlet was promoted and KF normalised violence against women. KF accepted the disciplinary proceedings were to be kept confidential. We know AA must have told others about these details. We have no evidence AA was warned or sanctioned, nor was any other

AC: the date for the hearing must have been divulged by AA and I not Dr Williamson submission particularly, and miss Hester. Its reflected RRS continued to try to host events and we know a masked student had to be removed. KF accepted this was harm to her well being

AC: KF also accepted that RRS wasn't advised to get legal advice. BU accept they should have done this. Dr. Williams stated it was suprise to hear the complaint was terminated after with no reason nor who made it

AC: it's a fact snd agreed in KF that nothing resulted in disciplinary hearing against AA. Aa felt vindicated posted a topless photograph...AC reads out socialmedia post

AC: it's a fact that BU offered top compensation. KF accepted there're no protections for feminists or women and only referred to broad policies. There are several policies for trans students and so on

AC: deeply unsatisfactory the defendent only submitted evidence during the trial.
AC talks of postponing the event in correspondence. The hearing managed to proceed with the protesters there and LTM accepted those protesters were intimidating and caused the delay

AC: the claimant wouldn't have said numerous times about the hostile environment if it had been 'mild' as BU states.

AC: KF wasn't available for second date, security tells the dates should have been checked. Security states it highlighted this last time for proposed RRS hearing date. LTM was chased for dates & the entire time the claimant was telling defendent the delay was causing harm

AC: LTM suggested the protesters were a 'suprise'. No risk assessments wasn't carried out nor advice given until Sept 2019. The RA says low risk but not non-existant.

AC: refers to Miss Bridgewater (JB) evidence and confirmed noone from disciplinary committee wasn't called upon. It matters because these people are not here and the decision was arrived at by a committee and we say they were a breachment of duty.

AC is talking about the letters she raised with LTM. A lot of correspondence to do with AA and states the bulk of AA legal team is arguing to do and say what they wanted to.

AC: LTM accepted the situation was claiming to the student. The flow chat produced today is the first time that's been produced and the first time we've see it.

(Apologies the initials I mean are LB, not LTM)

AC is emphasising the harm that was felt by the claimant and the amount of times this was communicated to the defendent.

AC: JB had not read any of the police reports that concern RRS and obviously not part of her assessment of risk and there is no actual risk assessment. JW said there RRS was no being bullied

AC: but again late disclosure from the defendent, Dr Williams letter had to be included for the suspension to be accepted by JW. JW didn't make any further enquiries despite her oversight

AC: the extension request that was permitted despite them only being permitted towards the end if studies. The rules states it doesn't need to be this time. It's important because JW says you don't get extra time just because you're angry at the uni

AC: that statement of JW is exceptionally unfair and exhibits the feeling of the institution towards RRS as an 'angry' student

AC: JW saying goodbye the options were 'bonkers' but still given such options and begs the question why? Despite context of JW that's she wasn't allowed to advise, there wasn't any immigration advice at all

AC goes on to discuss JWs evidence and JW must have known about the context and that needs to be looked at.

AC is now putting forward relevant case studies. [Winstanley] In respect to the duty of care the claimant states there was a duty of care. Uni is not just a place to learn and attend lectures. If that were the case they wouldn't try to regulate student behaviour

AC: I remind the court of JB evidence. Each and every student signs up to these regulations and this is evidence of the uni involving itself and regulating the conduct of its student. It wouldn't do that if it didn't recognise a responsibility to do that

AC: the defendent accepted it had a duty to protect and it said so in its letter. Again I recap KF accepted items that I would say lead to an obvious duty of care. Employees toom part in that letter, editing it, giving it out to other staff and students

AC: It's fair and just and reasonable that duty of care should be instilled in this case.

AC puts forward similar cases [Collins, Cody, Webster.]

AC: I set out a schools duty of care and I cite headteacher have a duty to care for pupils. I'm looking at reasonable teacher duty of care.

AR seeks clarity on this.

AR is wondering why AC is using this case now and AC is explaining her reasons.
AC:The defendent seeks to narrow the duty of care and in my submission it doesn't narrow the way the defendent says it does.

AC: I would highlight between a student and an education institution. This is a very different type of relationship, I accept its not a doctor/patient but its not set out as afar away as that by the defendent.

AC continues to discuss a case study in a school where students were the subject of the claim. This case is quite useful in the limited landscape that we have. In those case damages were awarded to a pupil bullied by another pupil.

AC continues to discuss the case law she's using to support. She highlights Phelps with Lord Nichols. The defendent is taking a restrictive approach instead of looking to the education context where there is much more helpful guidance

Ac: the defendent relies on a number of cases but judicial proceedings wouldn't have been appropriate and relied on health care professionals and Jane and Trent is relying on specialised knowledge and not as analogous as submitted

AC: I list a number of ways the defendent involved itself for you to find there is a duty of care. Eg. Made a public statement, took on a complaint.
AR states he will give as much weight to documents as he would in court

AC: if the court doesn't find there a duty of care then it must be concluded there is no duty of care. The defendent further breached its care because it stated on radio 4 about the claimant receiving mental health support. RRS did not consent

AR states that is data protection
AC: I noted a number of other breaches by the defendent by delaying the complaint. The delay was wrong and unreasonable and cause claimant harm.

AC: the defendent failed to support the claimant. I add it to the breach of duty of care list. It is clear there was a risk of psychiatric injury with the delay, visa, studies, costs.

AC refers to case study discussing preventative steps for psychiatric injury due to harassment, etc. The defendent enabled a bullying environment.

AC goes through several other case studies, including a teacher who was at odds with the governing body and was the target of a campaign. The courts conclusion of duty of care is sensitive to the facts

AC: the university is involving themselves from the putset and now say they this is between two opposing students.

AC: the defendent did nothing to stop the bullying and harassment. My claimant is vulnerable by being international and not understanding the process. It is set out in detail and an updated schedule of loss.

AC includes RRS counselling records in the bundle and the fact the counselling starts immediately from September is relevent.

AC: I set out the claimants contractual case
AR suggests given the time that AC spends time on equality act

AR is asking AC to ration time. AC is finishing the contract points with AR and will move to equality act. AC refers to Forstater case.

AC: and the Muller case recognised the misogynist language directed at her. RRS sex based rights conflicted with trans rights. Complaints are more likely made against women than trans activists. Students and staff were also trans activists.

AC: claimant never stopped opinions of other, their conduct was in question. BU accepted AA was wrong they utterly failed to condemn AAs conduct. The disciplinary action against AA was fruitless and AA now works at BU

AC: BU stated 'Our priority is that AA is supported at the school at this time'. Inclusion offers were advised to take no action at all due to freedom of speech on both sides. Thats a false equivalence between the sides.

AC: I highlight in the submission that obvious inappropriate language was used about her event and no need to prioritise emails.

AC discusses PCP and Judge intervenes (missed)

AC: reads out Sex Matters information and sex based rights. The defendent has not produced any evidence and said they were going to produce gender criticism but defendent isn't able to or tries to justify its treatment to RRS

AC: an event about the Equality Act is a protected act because it's linked to my client's protected characteristics. Putting aside duty if care, the defendent didn't do enough on the harassment and the harassment is linked to her sex

AC: the defendent uses the language such as toxic on campus and this is useful as to whether the uni did enough the prevent this.

AC: the claimant says if you find evidence or establish discrimination then that in itself is a breach. Likewise if the contract includes the duty not to discriminate, I say that's the point you look at them both together.

AC: I include evidence from doctors about an adjustment disorder. Within the schedule the claimant pitches for damages in the moderate category quite reasonably.

AC: doctor report listed a number of difficulties claimant is dealing with including low mood, anxiety, inability to enjoy, etc

AR asks if claimant is sticking at £14,000

AC says she is not overestimating but not undervaluing the damage either.

AC brings up other case studies to determine the damages awarded.

AC: I want to go on to talk about my claimants very honest evidence. Her answers should not be judged unfairly. Her trip abroad was a respite from what was happening.

AC: claimant also seeks financial award that flows from the discriminatory conduct of £35, 000 and that must be seen in response to her vulnerable position.

AC: these is RRS submissions.
LJ gets to respond and says she doesn't accept the quantum summaries put forward by AC. Doesn't accept the Parking case about Equality Act either.

AC: reiterates there was no psychiatric injury incurred.

AR: Judgement will be reserved and I need time to work it out. We need time to gather thoughts and when I'm ready I'll circulate a draft judgement. It won't be for public at that stage.

AR: I invite corrections for it then when I'm ready I'll do at a 5 minute hearing. If a further hearing is required I'll release that accordingly. I will need help with a time estimate for that.

AR: In terms of time forgive me, this is a complex case and I have 3 months before I have to ask for further time. I've never taken 3 months and will keep my fingers crossed.
Thank you all we are adjourned.

Huge thanks for following #RaquelvBristolUni & all of your messages of support. We'll update you when we hear news.

Thanks to brilliant live tweeters @TerfyMcTerfy @GoodyActually & the amazing team @StoatlyL @Jeeeez17 @SVPhillimore @katie_sok working behind the scenes.