Thread by @tribunaltweets

Hearing resumes.
[Panel member asks question - can't hear. Lots of crackling and papers turning]
LW: I don't know what ICOPA (?) is.

J: [asks question - very unclear]
LW: It wasn't those emails
J: you were asked about the 'fwd' re emails
LW: I don't know. I can't remember seeing these emails
J: [unclear]
LW: I've got no way of remembering what they were

JM: you were asked about JP meeting what happened afterwards. You were asked about the order of when people spoke
LW: I have to trust what is here. This accords with how I would expect it to be. It looks right but I can't remember the order
J: that's all, LW.
[LW leaves]

JM: Next witness is Richard Holliman (RH - Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating claimant's grievance)

RH: swears in
BC: in your wit statement you were asked to act as chair of investigation panel. Who from the team approached you?
RH: [unclear]
BC: you don't recall any enquiries being made into your timetable
RH: That's right
BC: were you asked if you had any involvement re the

topics (GCN) of the grievance
RH: I was asked to check emails etc to see if I had been involved in anything
BC: there is a timeline re the investigation. Have you seen it before
RH: yes
BC: nothing to do with the panel until July 2021
RH: yes

BC: you were asked to attend training
RH: Yes
BC: you said your diary is always full. This is my 1st grievance case - said better to get someone with less full diary
BC: going to take 3 months - likely to finish in October
RH: 3 months, yes

BC: July was very busy?
RH: yes
BC: were you busy all the way through
RH: No. I stopped doing my research and worked 6 days per week during the duration of the investigation
BC: you stopped non-essential work to do grievance panel?
RH: yes

RH: 5th July was start point. Info was coming in all the time
BC: did you do the training?
RH: yes, before scheduled meeting
BC: who gave you training?
RH: lawyer - can't remember name
BC: First grievance investigation
RH: correct

BC: did anyone tell you the criteria which led to you being asked to do grievance?
RH: No - it had to be a senior staff. other panel members were experienced
BC: Email from 'head of school' is actually from you?
RH: yes. I was appointed as rep for head of schools

BC: Item you were asking to be added to was GCRN. You say it was unfortunate timing bc of month of Pride
RH: Yes. I now understand that was wrong
BC: [unclear]
RH: heard of people saying felt unsafe. I didn't think these were valid

BC: You felt approach JDs removal of KMI logo was acceptable
RH: the way they removed GCRN from KMi servers was wrong. They shouldn't have been there in first place
BC: there's a link to an online petition
RH: link to Google doc letter. I disagreed with sending the letter

BC: you said you wouldnt' circulate to your school
RH: correct
BC: you said you didn't have issue with open letters
RH: that's right but the content and context is important
BC: you expressed a view on one of the sides of the grievance that you were to be involved in

BC: did you review these emails when you were asked to look at your emails after being asked to do grievance investigation
RH: No. I don't know why I didn't find these at the time.
BC: An invitation was sent to JP on 12th July. When was training you took part in

RH: can't remember
BC: why was meeting with JP earlier that a month following grievance
RH: July busiest time for Head of Schools
BC: so a month went by
RH: yes
BC: JP says she had to rearrange meeting bc she had opticians appt and she had just laid her mother to rest

RH: Correct
BC: Then you and another panel member were on holiday. So meeting was on 19th August
RH: correct
BC: none of this detail was discussed with you prior to the meeting
RH: correct

BC: JP became upset at meeting
RH: yes
BC: this affected you?
RH: yes
BC: Were there discussions about timescales?
RH: yes
[missed]
BC: email chain between prof Hayes. Can I take it that you and Dr Hayes were in agreement to take down public statements?
RH: yes

BC: An email from Sam Jacobson which sets out an interview schedule. That schedule doesn't show a great sense of urgency about interviewing people
RH: I disagree. We wanted to do it fairly. I don't think it was slow because of the process needed

BC: Re policy - do we agree that once you've notified people you have to give them 10 days to prepare response and then interview held after?
RH: we went as quickly as we could. Different methodology means diff timescales. Someone else could have been quicker. Don't think we were

slow
BC: JP wasn't notified until several days after you knew about grievance. From 23rd, 10 days was 6th September. Invitation sent to her on 7th Sept. You didn't have to wait until 7th
RH: we waited for response to come in and then formulated our timeframe from then

BC: Can't be right Dr Drake responded on 16th. First interview was on 6th Sept (with LW) which is almost 3 months after claimant put in grievance.
RH: can't recall why there was a delay
BC: DD emailed Jacobson - saying 4 weeks is a long time. Jacobson replies saying reason was

holidays
RH: I was also on holiday
BC: if there had been a real intention to get on with this, that could have been done by thinking more carefully at start about who should do the grievance.
RH: I was poss naive bc this was first investigation

BC: People could have checked notes while people were on hols to be more efficient
RH: Yes, I suppose that would have been better
BC: Grievance was not your decision?
RH: Correct, it wasn't mine
BC: that's all my questions

*The decision was to cease the grievance process when JP resigned. This was not RH's decision
J: short break now. Back in 10 mins

Hearing resumes.

[Waiting for judge to speak]

J: BC we're trying to find ref for convo where it discusses taking down open letter
[BC gives reference]

J: Re your email on 19 Aug re your recommendation to take down open letter. Did you put their recommendation in writing?
RH: Yes it's in bundle [gives ref]
J: that email you passed on to BC(?)?
RH: I felt it wasn't appropriate for me to pass it on

J: How were you told to take down letters
RH: we were told taking letters down would inflame situation
J: that was the reason given
RH: yes
J: No more questions

JM: I have questions. You sent email to sam davison and sally [unclear]
RH: My letter was in response to RSSH letter. I disagreed with contents of letter and disagreed with distributing it.

JM: thank you. No more questions
RH: Does this mean I can stand down?
J: yes
[RH leaves]
[Discussion about whether to call someone else now]
J: forgot to mention online witness. If she is well we can call her.
J: That's all for today. Thank you. We will resume at 10am tomorrow