Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to Part 2 of the morning session on DAY 7 of the July hearing of Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton.

Angela Glancy who led the investigation (ix) continues on the witness stand.
Find previous reporting on our substack

NC - DU phone log, no mention of it in iv. Aware of notes when you interviewed him?

[HEARING RESUMES 11:21]

NC - Were u aware DU talking notes on his phone when u interviewed him?
AG - give me two seconds
AG - So in the meeting Beth told me issues with SP earlier. Isn't noted in hearing but said she had logged them on her phone. I said tell me about them

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948328271898108246

AG - Then told me about instances from notes
NC - So that mention of those notes didn't make into notes. U made no record in the interview?
AG - No
NC - why? Important detail? He had notes on phone SP had behaved badly to him
AG - what he told me was info I took

NC - Here that says [reads 'Rw not provided log and lx not asked'] did that not make u think important I should get hold of them?
AG - Info was on personal phone and info I gathered was from Beth what had happened on those days

NC - best evidence was what Beth had noted on his phone?
AG - I ask questions, what happened, where, you know... thats what i did at the time. Reflecting today it may have helped but was personal phone
NC - did u know DU recorded all incidents on his phone including incident room

AG - yes
NC - I suggest u felt very anxious to ask DU for that - like others did?
AG - No
NC - and asking him to back up story felt disrespectful to u to someone as important to DU? He had to be appeased and u had to take his word?
AG - dont agree

NC - [another page] so those allegations about DU previous conduct. U didnt challenge him or ask him?
AG - no was lxing about something else
NC - U needed to lx DU didnt u? He was making allegations about a longstanding nurse and she was saying he was a troublemaker
[JR objects]

NC - Having seen those allegations potentially career ending by DU against SP, dont u think it would be good idea to find if any truth in those 3 paras?
AG - I think i was fair to SP and tried to determine facts of 26th sept. Wasn't there to determine what happened previously

NC - weren't these important qs about DU credibility?
AG - I was there to find out facts on incident put towards me
NC - U were told by DU he had no prior issues- u needed to know whether true or not?
AG - [pause] i was there to lx the incident in September

NC - want to ask u about what delayed the lx now. Turn to 806. About 'urgency' [reads email] Miss Russell asked what urgency was and u said board had info about these proceedings. So no urgency until then?
AG - not true. Urgency in CLo was about ET. Imperative u do lx quickly

AG - I can reassure u that my job was to do lx quickly as possible
NC - Fair to get 1st hand accounts asap?
AG - yes
NC - already 2 months delay. Not sure if we heard about ur holiday but think u were away when GM asked u to do lx. U said coming back 14th April. Not on holiday

Whole of March
AG - a week in March then last week March and first week April
NC - so at time u accepted - given how urgent it was - wouldn't it be better dealt with someone without substantial leave
AG - whether right decision i cant answer that

NC - [another page] Occupational Health (OH) report. Read it please.
So that confirms she's fit to take part in process - another reason to get on?
AG - yes
NC - It would require someone to crack on as fast as possible
SG - yes bit I also have a full time job. I did read

That report. Prior to seeing SP i spoke to Dtuart Fraser to make it easier for SP to attend. I did feel i dealt with as quick as possible. Had to give notice and make sure had representation. I tried to make it easy as possible for SP

NC - first interaction 12th April. 6 weeks after appointed lx manager
AG - 3 of those weeks i was holiday
NC - only thing that made board got on with it was DP made a claim?
AG - claim and ET are 2 diff things. I tried to do as quick as possible despite constraints.

NC - Truth is the Board was determined to punish DP for saying no to DU?
AG - no
NC - Reason for delay was u couldn't decide which charges to lay against SP, due to poor evidence?
AG - no
NC - indecision of charges wasnt causing delay?
AG - no

AG - Allegations were sent out to SP, I didnt add any after that.
NC - Move on to the patient care allegations. These were discussed by HR on 3rd Jan. Known about by board. Page 322.

NC - Discussions among HR officers on page 275. U would have been copied into. U have seen?
AG - only in the bundle
NC - We see from 277. This is email to ann Hamilton who was supporting you. [Reads 'comparing to sex offender'] So these patient care allegations already live

AG - not with me
NC - in ur letter to SP 3rd April
AG - Lotties letter
NC - did u see this at the time?
AG - no
NC - u are only lxing Xmas eve incident at this time
AG - I didnt discuss with lottie

NC - so far u have let SP know u are only lxing Xmas eve incident?
AG - yes
NC - notified SP of 3 allegations
AG - no thats er ... sorry what were u saying...
NC - turn to 844 and u will see. That letter was never sent was it?
AG - I.. Im sure the EC admin would have sent

NC - email?
AG - post
NC - im suggesting it was never sent. U say that was sent?
AG - probably worth explaining. I sent my letters to EC admin and they pit in address a d they send letters out. I dont send them out personally
NC - so no personal knowledge it was sent

NC - You start that letter [reads 'attend lx meeting and allegations']. Look back at letter u say was sent on 15th may
AG : additional allegations yes
J - wait for question
NC - [reads] if that had been sent wouldn't u expect the next letter to say something apologetic

That goalposts had moved
AG - the first was described and explained on 12th April and then letter sent to SP 15th may theres 3 further allegations. Letter 19th says all allegations prev discussed
NC - but nothing about 'further to my letter of q5th may'?
AG -unsure why id do that

AG - all info has been discussed in previous letters
NC - SP is adamant she never received May letter. I suggest because it wasn't sent bc the Board was in turmoil about whether or not there was sufficient in patient care allegations to pin on SP?
AG - disagree.

AG - I dont share anything with anyone when doing an lx
NC - the allegations were extremely dangerous for FU and KD amd should have been escalated at one if true?
AG - I cant talk about what ur describing just now. I would never discuss with anyone else

NC - are u saying u were making the decisions? Noone higher telling u what to do
AG - yes noone telling me what to do. My role was determine all evidence and then what I've found. These allegations came from me and id not discussed with leadership team

NC - You're aware various waves of documents produced-and some that should've been produced early weren't produced until later. There's a lot more isnt there?
AG - I have a folder that has everything to do with this lx and I have that and all emails. I cant speak for anyone else

NC - do u feel confident that everything u produced has turned up in this bundle
AG - yes
[Turns to another doc]
NC - [reads] do u know what that other email was?
AG - thats from MSF so dont know

NC - shes addressing a number of ppl including u so would be an email in ur possession ?
AG - thats about witnesses
NC - now a few Qs about... sorry lost track of time
J - might be best to have a break

[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll