Thread by @tribunaltweets

Day 6 afternoon, second session will continue here.

J - you are still under oath
NC - afternoon KS. Back to doc disclosures and when 6th Feb, told you had further searched emails - JR said completed, previous, KS found another 4 emails...
J - slower and louder
NC - JR said KS had performed another search, 4 more emails sent over

NC - do you remember, mid-hearing being asked
KS - yes
NC - *refs where in bundle* you may not know, but turn to 720, another disclosure just before hearing 31st Jan, email from you 29th dec to all ED consultants. Sent days before hearing started

NC - did you do as thorough job as you coudl?
KS - I did best I could, next time asked wen't through with IT specialist who helped with terms to search, don't recall that in Jan/Feb, not an IT expert, not been through this before, didn't know personal emails would

be made public this way.
NC - turn to foot in mouth email, same distribution group with DU added, as others found. same subject.
KS - didnt find till in this bundle
NC - you are an ED consultant, you are capable, intelligent etc person?
KS - yes
NC - fair assumption

NC - incompetence or knowingly withhold
KS - did not withold
NC - asking trib to belive
KS - asking trib to believe anything, I did not find that email
NC A few qu about Rahana, the only witness other than DU or SP who can shed light on refusal to comm over patient who left

NC - without being seen.
KS - I'm worried about including someone who doesn't want to be involved.... it's not fair on her.
JR - can we have a break
J - tell us when ready to continue
Court rises.

We're back
J - KS ready?
KS - yes
J - if need a break say
NC - the mendion of health care assist seemed to upset you a great deal why
KS - i spoke to her about being a witness, didn't herself or her name to be involved in this case.
NC - upset because wanted to protect

NC - upset due to anxiety
KS - said dind't want any part because as a mixed race person, that SP views about her race would impact working together going forward
NC - youre asking us to believe your concern over how SP would treat her, caused that outburst?
KS - I'm kind, don't

KS - want to cause harm through this case
NC - do you agree she was an important witness
KS - agree
NC - only person who can shed light on DU's allegations about patient who left.
KS - I agree.
NC - *ref bundle* 484 look at qu 2 and answer, then I'll ask qu.

NC - AG asked this witness a commendably open question, answer was flat contradiction of DU said... JR interrupts. withdraws. Repeat qu. her evidence flatly contradicts.
KS - says can't recall the conv
NC - but recalls there was a conv
KS - doesn't say which 3 people present

NC - it does, it says there was a conv about a child who went missing.
KS - says she was unable to recall the conv
NC - saying it didn't happen?
KS - recalls there was a conv, not what it was, contradicts herself
NC - asked in chief about subsequent conv with this witness

NC -was it subsequent to AG interview with her?
KS - dont recall when it happened.
NC - in broad terms?
KS - no, beth, only knew of incident on 29th dec, not specifics of support worker name... don't recall
NC - you were asked, whether you had had any sub conv re 2nd incident

NC - can't help at all? spring? summer?
KS - it's been a long process, its all blurred into one between dec and now.
NC - this is a conv that caused you such anxiety for her, might be burnt in memory?
JR - didn't say that and repetitive questioning unlikely to help

J - says she doesn't know. we have prob gone as far as can go
NC - caused her great emotion
J - if people can't remember
JR - you naming a person caused her anxiety, seeing her upset, calling it an outburst means people skills leave a lot to be desired

NC - after ix started and before AG conv with withness possibly.
KS - possibly
NC - do you agree if you sought her out then, it would be grossly improper
KS - yes
NC - so would have been after July date, or grossly improper.
KS - most likely after during discussion

KS - about this and who would speak
NC - you would have known if after AG had spoken to her?
KS - no I wouldn't
NC - why seek her out?
KS - ??
NC - when did DU nominate her as a witness?
KS - don't recall being told 29th dec who it was
NC - you heard DU nominate as person presetn

NC - in DU iv with AG 9th may where you were present
KS - if she said it then I would have heard it.
NC - you weren't giving instructions to lawyer on behalf of board, you aren't the client ?
KS - no
NC - you weren't the investigator
KS - no
NC - what possible business did you

NC - have seeking out a witness to pending tribunal procedings?
KS - no business.
NC - you were determined on DU behalf to round up support for his turn of events weren't you
KS - I asked her to see if her story supported Beth
NC - were you horrified when I mentioned her name

NC - not for her but for the consequences for you of making up something she said?
KS - no absolutely not.
NC - moving onto Xmas eve...
JR - KS is becoming visibly distressed
J - break?
KS - no thank you.
NC - page 270 please. 2nd email is DU to you in small hours Xmas am

NC - soon after incident when he got home. Look at summary para, focus first on first 9 lines. Starting myself and another, ending told I can change here. REread?
K S - yes
NC - on that part, what's happened upto then. WOman foundman in CR told him not to be there because hes a

NC - man. He's insisted he's entitled to be there, focus on that.
JR - unfair premise, DU is not a man, a she's a TW
NC - ..
J - there was an objection
NC - DU is a TW and so DU is a man. Legally speaking in FWS EQA he's a man
JR - FWS not agreed
J - we need to hear submissions

J - put it differently
NC - a woman found a trans ID man in F CR, she said he shouldn't be there, he said he's entitled to. That in your view is enough to be harassment and a HI.
KS - not those 9 lines no
NC - she was in her rights to object
KS - not in that manner DU described

NC - just those 9 lines, anything in her manner in those 9 lines makes it HI and harassment.
KS - fact SP waited for DU to leave cubicle, waited for others to leave and Du come out and approached her and said offensive things like you shouldn't be here you aren't a woman repeated

NC - you said that's offensive
KS - it is offensive to a TW
NC - are you saying this hangs on SP waiting for her to come out of the cubicle or that she waited
KS - both are offensive and objectionable
NC - just saying you're a man and shouldn't be her eisenough

KS - policy said intimidating or offensive in way you say, that's enough. If everyone was kind and said things another say there was no need for it to come to this.
NC - think briefly about another person, not a man who thinks/wishes he was a woman - a man in mans clothes - Pete

NC - if Pete walks in, do you agree the decent thing to do is leave and apologise
JR - object DU not a man
J - hypothetical is fine
KS - if a man walks in he's in hte wrong place
NC - should leave
KS 0 in wrong place yes
NC - F CR is the wrong place?
KS - yese

NC - i fPete says I'm a woman that's OK
KS - not saying that.
NC - agree if Pete goes in, shuts the door and refuses to leave thats intimidating
KS - hypotheitcal Pete, yes
NC - even if many women
KS - yes
NC - OK for women to say leave
KS - yes
NC - no legal diff btwn Pete and

NC - DU, if so - it's the same
KS - no
NC - will address in submissions
NC - all SP has done is the equivilent of saying go away Pete
KS - told the approach was not like that
NC - only continues because DU didn't leave, stood ground conv continued.
KS - no DU says tried to end it

NC - SP tried to reason, he says asked about chromasomes, we say not, but not offensive
KS - yes it is invasive and intimidating
NC - it's a polite way of discussing fact of body not mentioning genitals. You might think it's more polite
JR - object, DU is not obviously a man

JR - not pu tto the witness
NC - will put it, DU is obviously a man
KS - no
NC - under oath, credibility important, saying you woundn't know DU was a TW unless told?
KS - wouldn't have known what sex DU assigned at birth
NC - he said just like person in prisons, agreed

NC - sandie said nothing about a rapist, she said situation in the prison
KS - think so that person in the prison, don't know of any other case of a TW in prison. The Bryson case was high profile, believed that's being ref'd
NC - 720 - sorry put previous qu wrongly. DU's evidence

NC - was it's like the situation in the prisons, DU own account was situation in prisons. Not about a rapist, its about a place where women can expect F only spae
JR - no it's agreed bryson was mentioned.
J - do you have uncontested facts doc? Read out details
JR - C refered to

JR - prison situation, Bryson Graham case. Agreed not disputed.
J - Do you accept
NC - I accept JR read it correctly. Must be entitled to put to KS the 2nd respondant said when he said it was like sitn in prisons, v sim to his written account.
J - asking about another witness

J - testimony, our job to assess others testimony.
NC - can deal in submissions with withdrawing agreement
J - will have to look at whether and how to do that.
NC - may be about exact interpretations, agreed facts give a gloss, don't say SP refered to rapist, only sitn and

NC - then explains it.
J - cannot take evidence on agreed fact, need a break.
10 mins

We resume:
NC - no need to apply to resile, paragraph says prison sitn, and the isla bryson case mention is explanatory.
SP said I couldnt' remember name at time, but that a TW was in prison.
J - disputed he's a rapist?
NC - no but not SP may not have know was a rapist at the

JR - quote...
NC - that isn't contrary to what I said.
NC - allusion to rapist, same in datix, that's your interpretation of what DU said
KS - no that's what sh esaid verbally
NC - neither you or DU had basis for saying Sandie compared DU to a rapist. The point was DU presence

was wrong in the same way a mna in F prison is wrong.
KS - no, it was a well known case, like saying DU is like a convicted rapist in a F prison
NC - saying SP said isla bryson
KS - I think we just agreed that is what she meant

J - qu was did she use the words
KS - no she didn't

KS - use the words Isla Bryson.
NC - turn to ?71, continuing on his account of incident, he says she wouldn't let it go, i repeated formal channels and appropriate conv. He kept saying not appropriate time, channels and only left when she agreed to.
KS - correct

NC - he wouldn't leave or end conv till she did what he wanted
KS - not clear
NC - nothing stopping him leaving was there
KS - DU said maybe layout meant Sp was in the way
NC - blocking him
KS - between her and door

NC - no mention of being stopped, if she'd capitulated earlier he would have left
KS - can only speak to discussion and what was written down
NC - narrative of datix, we know you completed this with DU on 29th dec, it refers to akin to a convicted rapist in a womens prison

NC - what DU said same as situation, you added the ref to rapist
KS - what's offensive is the inference, which is why it was important to mention in a hate incident
NC - it's important on datix to be specific and accurate, report what was said and done, not interpretation, agree

KS - agree and think that's what I did
NC - as DU reported to you just like that person in prison
KS - I wrote nurse alluded to
NC - not better to add what DU reported to you which gives impression rapist was mentioned
KS - I thought i was being fair
NC - datix mentions aggressiv

and confrontational manner, we don't see in DU email
KS - not in email, but starts saying upsetting and discussed at length on 29th dec and she immediately felt SP was confrontational and aggressive.
NC - whether SP was confront/aggress and whether DU was upset are different

NC - things?
KS - I reported what I ....
NC - asked about chr but said nothing about offensive language
KS - we agreed it was offensive
NC - what we see is you turning up emotional heat for the datix
KS - what i saw was jr dr upset and not wanting to work because of a colleague

NC -completing as advocacy for DU
KS - filling out as dr responsible for DU wellbeing, filled it as i saw fit to describe incident as occured.
JR - previous was inappropriate behaviour
NC - if you hadn't made it look this way it woujdn't have been considered a HI

KS - reported it as and still do think it's a HI
NC - you are aware SP has been cleared of all
KS - yes
NC - board didn't find.
KS - believe not enough evidence
NC - email to ED, you say SP hard to work with before today, beth has a log of less severe incidents

NC - so on 29th you heard about other 2 incidents
Yes
NC - first time heard?
KS - yes
NC - you describe as less severe
KS - less severe to beth
NC - see all consultant email 29th dec, MC responds a few minutes later, to all ED consultants you say

NC - sketch of incident, DU reaction, you all support him and condemn SP. We see MC response 30th dec, thanks you for proactive and decisive and offering support on behalf of all. I suggest you have put on an exemplary display of piety and virtue and MC trying to associate

NC - scrambling, positively ingratiating. Agree?
KS - disagree
NC - 756 surinder panthar (?) also approves sentiment
KS - he agrees yes
NC - a successful move for you in terms of status in dept
KS - disagree
NC - apart from Melvin email that's it, aware of any others?

KS - no
NC - sent to 19 seniors, all support and condemnation of sandie, no one else responds?
KS - i didn't receive any other responses
NC - usual rules don't apply to DU do they
KS - i don't agree
NC - ??? - email 3rd jan to DU just an update JD now involved and wanted

NC - me to pass on support. WHoly inappropriate when doing ix?
KS - in hindsight, yes
NC - 258 - email from melvin c of 7th jan, cc'd to same group, thanks for making aware kate, now being investigated. Looks like he's trying to shut down conv.
KS - don't know
NC - its flat

KS - could infer
NC - not stated is it
KS - no
NC - you would have mentioned if you'd been told to shut it down - whole truth?
KS - I would have
NC - you aren't subject ot any disciplinary proceedings because of that email?
KS - no
NC - AG 18th ap to you - meeting invite,

NC - saying speaking to you first before DU. Woudn't be appropriate for you to be there when DU interviewed
KS - if you say
NC - mitigate by speaking to you first
KS - that's what AG says.
NC - it's what you want and AG indulges
JR - not what it says, no rules

NC - it's a pattern for DU (for normal process not to be followed - missed exact wording)
NC - this is your invitation to meeting, avoid talking to anyone else, other than rep, take it seriously?
KS - yes
NC - did you then confess to AG you left confidentiatlity in ruins

NC - sending email, passing message from JD etc
KS - i didn't
NC - did you not understand?
KS - didn't action
NC - talking to witness that upset you a flagrant breech?
KS - in hindsight yes
NC - Can you tell us about that chat with HR?
KS - no its AG ref'ing to DU

NC - saying complainant should speak to you first?
KS - I am her supervisor, close on this incident, my part as a witness is only I'm who she reported to. I was offering well being support to beth.
NC - metadata of doc formal complaint made on 31st dec

NC - email of 12th, you says ED taken lead on ix, happy to forward your statement etc. looks like you knew doc called formal complaint created 31 jan
KS - seems so
NC - existed didn't have e-copy, had you seen it?
KS - no
NC - 277 - not cc'd on this, seen b4?
KS - no

NC - HR people exchange , and ED at at least one point, JHerkiss (?) says to update on advice given to ED, allegation nurse sought out dr, compared to sex offender, left cubicle, seems JH knew about resus incident.
KS - yes
NC - where did she get that? Infer from ED and ED ,

NC - from you?
KS - yes
NC - ever spoken to JH?
KS _ no
NC - gets a detail wrong, given ED likely told and she got it from you>
KS - ???
NC - your email 30th dec, mention of log of less severe incidents, can see one is leaving patient cubicle
KS - yes

NC - order of priority is surprising, more concerned about SP action to DU rather than abandoning patient care?
KS - in hindsight we didn't necessarily see they were patient safety issues, all together we saw
NC - even in broad terms it says shes so bigotted against DU would

NC - abandon a patient, career ending
KS - yes
NC - if someone sees this, they themselves as CM said to you, are culpable
KS - CM hasn't spoken to me about this
NC - CM has said when you spoke to her about it she said to you you would be
KS - don't recall conv

NC - alarming conv, you would remember
KS - yes, it would be alarming
in hindsight, gathered incidents look like a trend
NC - weren't reported because they didn't happen
KS - disagree
NC - bringing up with CM to change her mind about SP return to work
KS - do not recall conv of

KS - that sort.
NC - page? - last page of DU's xmas am email to you, first report. Last para, upset and shaken, not sure I can use changing if she's there. how well did you know SP then?
KS - in passing
NC - no reason you would know shift
KS - right
NC - note of DU in feb

NC - about that, said I communicated was not willing work and KS would ...
JR - wasn't aware there was a transcript
J - we've talked about this
JR - not shared with both sides
NC - will share
JR - i need it now
NC - requested and paid for by us, no obligation

J - if asking questions on it, fair for witness to read it. how long is section?
NC - 6-7 lines
J - fairly long, don't want to waste time
NC - can email everyone
J - solves?
JR - solves immediate prob
J - can email to court, can print for witness and how much longer?
NC - 10 min

Break for 10

We Resume
J - what page is this?
NC - page ?? line no?
J - no
NC - you have the note, have you read it
KS - yes
NC - Du was saying the nurse was so intimidateing he'd have to go on some kind of leave if overlapping shifts
KS - yes
NC - clear to keep DU happy SP needed to be

NC -removed>
KS - no, some mitigation.
NC - no knowledge of shifts, no idea how easy to keep apart long term
KS - correct
NC - thats what you told SP, at the time reposnsible for SP suspension
KS - not what I said
NC - said SP was so terrifying needed to be out of dept

KS - absolutely did not
NC - that's why you brought back discussion of incidents with lottie myles at that time
KS - do not recall any discussion of that sort
NC - page 89 - you say you don' trecall any conv where you pushed back about SP return decision
KS - do not

NC - looking at requests by C, blue answers given by Rs on 17th dec, someone in respondant in Dec last in answer to which staff objected to CM decision to return - lists people - how did they get that answer?
KS - don't recall that discussion.

P1 - one question, you don't recall

P1 - CM conv, can you tell us any conv you had with her then
KS - i remember her in dept, but don't recall any conv.
J - thanks, is there a procedure on how you do datix reports?
KS - yes
J - do you remember what it says?
KS - use for all sorts of incidents, give a timeline

KS - anonymous to start, fill in ID in boxes. Use for incidents of patient safety, and like this
J - it's policy that it's anonymous?
KS - yes - auto emails contain paragraph with anonymised details
J - ????
KS - a imagine a bit of both
J - you looked up something a code of pract

KS - EHRC one or?
J - that's my question, there are lots
KS - EHRC 2010 before parliament in 2011, says CR use by gender identity
J - look beyond to the Act?
KS - confess not, read google excerpts
J - did you take notes 29th dec
KS - bulleted email to beth after

KS - emailed to her
J - electronic note as you went
KS - no
J - who is ?
KS - GP trainee at the time
J - 1123 please - back to qu of what you looked at. appears to be front page of stat code of pract, 2 pages within that, heading GI disc in SSspaces
KS - yes

KS - should treat as GI present
J - then however, did you read
KS - yes
J - what did you think as whole
KS - exclusion needs to be a proportionate means, would need good reason to exclude DU from SS CR
J - one qu is whether theres a distinction between publilc or work

KS - yes but I could find no NHS fife policy on that
J - you said any grievance by SP could be raised in a proper manner, your answer was Beth had every right, any grievance could be raised in proper manner. So what do you think is a proper manner

KS - speak to line manager if not content, if not content with response, escalate to their lead, and other ways, up the chain.
J - who within Fife may have given approval to DU to use FCR?
KS - don't think it was ever discussed, don't know but don't think discussed outwith dept

J - did you say anything could be construed as approval
KS - agreed with DU, she said she'd used it in other jobs and there had been no (issues).
J - when searching emails, you said you searched your emails -sent or recieved?
KS - all boxes
J - if it had been deleted part of that

search?
KS - not necessarily, emails are deleted automatically
J - how often
KS after 30 days I think
J - ??
KS - may not have typed in names, on second request were given lots of names to search. Lot of staff and so there's a long list of emails if you just type name

J - that's it
JR - a few, will get through quickly. Were taken to 5th Jan email from MC. Asked a v long qu yesterday. so you can respond to all of the qu's in it. Live investigation, ED a few days earlier and until Feb, ED can't do it as involved with SP
KS - agree
JR - seems to

setting up a group intentionally
KS - disagree
JR - *reads*info must not be shared outside group, says that
KS - agree
JR - suggested yesterday you acquiesced to DU to use F CR, address that.
KS - that I gave in?
JR - yes
KS - i disagree with that

JR - yesterday asked qu's on bio sex - meaningful and implications - agree?
KS - yes
JR - relevant to puberty
KS - yess
JR - response to drugs
KS - yes
JR and what is bio sex
KS - what is assigned to you at birth (missed...)
JR - what are the /?
KS - other possibilities

confusion over chromasomes
KS - not a geneticist - XXY, XYY (cross talk)
JR - asked about Pete with menacing behaviour. How would you describe DU behaviour
KS - kind and compassionate, never experienced anything but kind and compassion to patients and colleagues.

JR - page - DU contemporaneous note at Xmas, comment about prisons
KS - how she was alluded to as being sim. to isla bryson rapist in F prison
JR - 270-1 - DU email to you Xmas 217am qu about SP being aggressive and confrontational, 272 talks about disc with Elspeth

about safety at work, whole thing left me upset and shaken. ???
KS - she described how it occured, felt threatened, SP would normally leave, waited and approached, words used were said in manner percieved to be aggressive. Obvs confrontational as alone in CR

JR - additional docs bundle 1703 - won't have seen, this is outcome of conduct hearing. Says whilst i find o conclusive evidence, satisfied caused distress, as a RN would expect for you to deescalate and suggest training which should be submitted to RNC for revalidation

JR - *more* thoughts?
KS - reflects what I said about taking through proper channels
J - we're done
JR - two witnesses tomorrow Angela Glancy and Ann Hamilton.
*RISE*

@threadreaderapp please unroll