Thread by @tribunaltweets

We're tweeting the second afternoon session of Peggie v Fife NHS Board and Dr Upton.
Naomi Cunningham will be cross examining ED consultant Kate Searle.

NC Good afternoon Dr Searle. I'd like to ask u some questions about documents first. That's MCs 5.2 email that yr cced into. Did u receive it?
KS Yes
NC Have u seen this case mgmt order before?
No
NC It's orders that the Rs provided. It says asap but Rs must supply all docs..

NC by this date [reading out] Were u aware of it?
KS An order for documents? I..I'm not sure.. I don't know
NC An email between u and IB on 8.1 that was provided to the C's before the order was made. Did u provide it/
KS I've trawled all my emails but before this I wasnt

aware and hadn't made a full search. I wasnt prev asked to search all my emails until v recently.
NC When were u asked?
KS I was asked in the last couple of months
NC [new doc] Was this email come up in a prev trawl for emails?
KS Only when I was asked for it

I didnt recall it and was asked to look for it
NC You were never asked until v recently to trawl for any material that wld fall into that order?
KS As part of this process, I dont recall all emails. We were asked for emails that pertained. I dont recall being asked to trawl my

email re this list until the past few months
KS We had a mtg in April that had a legal order to search for emails ourselves or someone wld have to do it. Wld have been April or May.
JR Did u do it comprehensively?
KS Yes

JR So u are confident y've disclosed e'thing in that order?
KS Yes
JR Email for MC to DU's LM, you, ED, LH and LC who were potential witnesses as well as you. So obvs an important doc isnt it?
KS It refers to the Ix process so I havent read the order again

[apologies I've put the wrong counsel initials above]
KS So it's relevant to the...
NC So, given the importance of that, very important, as goes between many witnesses can u explain why it wasnt produced for Feb? It wasnt available until April
KS No. We were asked to go throug

KS [missed]
NC [New doc] This email itself doesnt matter but point relates to how email chains work. Subject line and upthread the subject line has Re:... That's standard isnt it to show is a reply?
KS Usually yes altho you can adjust if you wanted to

NC Back to p1253. We see at the top of this email it's the originating email
KS I agree it doesnt say Re
NC Do u recall its a response?
KS I dont recall it.
NC [reads re needing small need to know group] It's the start of a convo?
KS Seems to be

[regards an email discussion group seemingly]
NC [new doc] U notice the subject line is PC incident. An email from you of 12 Jan is a re email. Curren's email was on 5 Jan. So yrs is a reply to MC?
KS I dont agree

NC The way this is presented with nothing but yr signature and nothing below, gives the impression yr email of 12 Jan was the start of an email chain?
KS Yes
NC Do you normally write Re: in a subject line?
No
NC Do u ever?
I dont know

NC How do u explain?
KS The subject PC Incident was used a lot of times
NC [discussing various email headings] That whole chain has the title "Re PC" and covers a lot of pages. I think JR will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only emails w that title are this chain plus

NC MCs email of 5 Jan
JR It is used in other emails, eg in a reply from the BMA [and gave another example] [long pause]
NC Apology for the pause but I was confused about the 2 chains. Look at the chain from p730 upwards, that's this chain "re PC Incident" in the subject line.

Email from ED to DU, you'll see that's the same email copied at the bottom of the page. DU forwards some of this chain onto the BMA. Maggie's small need-to-know group to avoid foot in mouth has the same source as the chain we're looking at from 730 up. I can repeat if too garbled

NC I'm suggesting we dont see this subject line v often. We see catch up and HI, but isnt used commonly. we see an email chain at 729 to the same group that MC was emailing on 5 Jan that we've looked at. But not copied to MC's email at the bottom.

729 was prod to the C during the Feb hearing. When produced was the email.
J Wasn't this at the 1st hearing?
No
J SO this isnt the orig bundle that has supplemental info that added later
NC It came in during the course of the 1st hearing and added as went along

NC when emails ending at 730 were presented to the Cs lawyers there was MCs email chopped off for some reason
KS You don't know that for sure. It cld have been deleted. These ppl are in the cc box and not the to box. I wonder if someone has relied, deleted and then cc-ed?

Otherwise e'one wld be in the to box.
NC They're the same ppl, except DU was added in in Jan. You can understand why ppl wldnt have wanted this email see the light of day?
KS I cant belive we wld have held back emails
NC The 5 Jan email is seriously embarrasing to the Rs

NC It talks about the Ix, and how ED will be the investigator, it appears to be to set and coordinate a group of ppl who shldnt be talking to each other as witnesses. It talks about info not leaving the group and foot in mouth syndrome. it's serious isnt it?

KS I agree we shldnt have written these things in this group. I cant say whether it's been withheld. I dont think u can prove the emails were linked
NC These emails werent produced for the 1st hearings were they?
KS It appears not
NC There were 6 of you in this chain

NC & after DU added, so 6 of you cld have found this info?
KS I'm not a legal expert and cant say. Not all were involved throughout. I dont know who was involved when
NC U knew LC was involves as y'd discussed the HI
NC Did u all agree not to produce it
KS NO

NC I suggest u conspired not to produce it
Absolutely not. I'm a dr and trustworthy.
NC Yr regulator wld be concerned about this if you hadnt?
KS we have to work w honesty and integrity

NC Re DU using F CR, DU said [reads re was approp for him to use this CR. I have been instructed is the approp thing for me to do and I've been told to do this] Y're the only person who discussed this
KS I didnt instruct Dr Upton. I checked she was ok to use the F CR.

KS I wldnt normally ask this but I wanted to make sure she was comfortable doing this as aware she's a T female. A short convo only and no instruction.
NC [new doc] In yr evidence in chief u said Beth [reads from before] What's happened is u treated as self evident he was

entitled to use the F CR
KS I read the EHRC that said u were entitled to use the CR of yr GI.
NC There's been no consultation had there?
KS I wld never have a convo w other jr dr so I didnt have that convo w Beth either. I'm a clinician dealing w supervision.

If there's a workforce issue someone more senior shld do this work before Beth came to me
KS Beth has every right to use the facilities she wants under the GRA.
NC What did u look at to satisfy yrself?
KS If u google it there's many refs for trans ppl and CR

KS I asked IB and there's no other policy to dispute this
NC IB told the tribunal that she doesnt know if she's F or M. Do u know yr F?
It's on my birth certificate
But u know yr F?
KS That's the gender that was given to me at birth. The sex.

It's a decision made at birth by the ppl delivering the baby, I believe. I'm not an expert at it.
NC So sex assigned at birth is whether u have a M or F body?
Yes
NC Bio sex is very important [lists re responses to drugs, normal ranges for bld results]
KS Yes

NC Anyone saying sex is a nebulous dog whistle is talking nonsense?
KS I dont know what u mean
NC explains
J I think nebulous dog whistle means quite that
NC Gives DUs statement
KS I cant say as wasnt here for that evidence

NC What does GC mean?
KS I think strong views on sex and have 2 chromosomes
NC Females having strong views, and yr body is determined biologically on yr chromosomes
I think so. I'm not an expert
NC Are u aware that GC belief is a PC under the EA

KS yes
NC What do you understand about talking about yr PC being protected. It's a legal Q
KS Y're allowed to have yr beliefs but the way u express them may not be lawful
NC U talked to DU re Aug/OCt self exclusion of SP from CR
KS I dont remember the dates, but assume corre

I dont recall suggesting that he should take things further
NC [new doc] Read the 1st para. [reads re raising it with you and was given the opportunity. He wasnt going to force her to change w him]
KS I dont recall that or what form it cld have taken [raising it further]

KS It cld have been talking w SP
NC Is it plausible u discussed it?
KS DU was v upset so wld have been approp to take further to ensure e'one is safe in kind and compassionate way
NC Are u suggesting an informal discussion wld have been appropriate?

KS Talking between ppl with kindness and compassion can often be the best way forward
NC Does kind/compassion incl empathy?
Yes
NC And understanding ppl have diff experiences?
Yes
NC Some W may be more uncomfortable w removing clothes w a man not intimate with?
KS Yes

NC Can u spell out the kind of life experiences that might cause that?
Male violence. Unwanted behav by men
NC A lot of W have exp this kind of thing?
I dont know the nos
NC NAd they dont wear badge sdo they?
KS No

NC So wld it be approp to facil a convo re her not wanting to take her clothes off in a room he was in. Not a kind way to treat Sandie
KS It wasnt what I was proposing. Just a way of managing when ppl are uncomfortable
NC U cld tell from Du that SP was feeling v uncomfortable

KS I dint make an approach to Sp about her feeling uncomfortable
NC U saw her removing herself from CR as bad behaviour
KS Beth felt uncomfirtable that SP didnt want to engage...she was the only one behaving like this
NC That's not the Q.

It was making him uncomfy so classed as misbehaviour.
NC Isnt that confirmed on p270 in DU email to u at 3.17am. Her removal of herself was regarded as an "escalation of her behaviour"
KS Her prev actions weren't misbehaviour. we discussed but didnt so anything about it

NC These emails w IB were about this issue. DU was keen to help develop trust policies. Which might make it easier to take things forward if ppl refused to undress w him
KS No, I dont agree, NHS Scotland were due to be writing policies (?)

J How long do u have to go
NC I need another hr. I underestimated the time
J Can u return tmrw KS?
KS Yes I can
J Can u return at 11am tomorrow so u dont have a long wait? We'll do well to complete SK before lunch. How long for the other witnesses?
JR Maggie Curra [discuss]

J Actually, can u return at 11.30 and we may need a late lunch tomorrow.
JR I have a lot of Qs to ask - I have been saving these up.
NC I may need more time w MC
J We need to be careful about our timetble
JR Lauren Harris was due to come tmrw but she may have to come another

day
J I'll let you sort out the timetable between you. See you tomorrow

[SESSION ENDS]

@threadreaderapp unroll