Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to Part 3 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

[HEARING RESUMES 12:11]

NC - I'm going to ask a few Qs about ix now. So looking at email top of page from DU to u. U have contacted him about meeting 26th April and he asks if u want his full statement including Xmas eve incident. We see u talk about dates but dont answer

About more detail. Why is that?
AG - actually im unsure but I had another statement sent to me as well. Full statement
NC - u said in chief u received in June.
AG - I dont know own why - must be an oversight

NC - Looking back at DU email 17th April. His offer of more detail [reads] It sounds from that that he thinks there are 2 versions of his story in boards possession?
AG - cant answer that - i knew 2 statements
NC - this is part of your ix with DU and u do accept his offer of more

Detail amd he tells u of two more occasions including when SP withdrew from CR. It seems in this ix u still have seen complaint document.
AG - yes
NC - wasnt it obvious there was something u hadn't seen at this point
AG - he, Beth gave me an account at the time

JR - I notice the witness is getting confused with pronouns [reads from bar standards benchbook] says u should use pronouns that are preferred. I say NC constant misgendering is creating a hostile environment and witnesses not used to hearing DU

referred to as he/him. Its clearly discombobulating the witness and im concerned she cant give best evidence. I ask u to note my concerns and ask NC to reflect on her language used in court
J - [to NC] do u want to sya anything, time to reflect?
NC - no

NC - DU says 'can I refer to my notes' and u say absolutely. So at that point hes talking about referring to his notes. Can u tell what sort of notes? Notebook, phone?
AG - referred to his phone, her phone sorry
NC - and he would have sent u screenshots

AG - didn't think i needed to ask for those and DU told me what I needed
NC - refer to page 453. Email from u on 13th may after the meeting. U ask sensible follow up Q about who was present at patient care incident. Read that and I'll ask a Q

NC - fair to say his answer is slightly vague. SP working with nights a week. U didnt even find out how many shifts theyd coincided on?
AG I checked 18th December and whether Healthcare support worker was on shift.

J - on resus incident u were asking if u checked shifts?
AG - no
NC - I suggest DU was giving clear steer not to ix
AG - I did i spoke to SP about it
NC - I suggest it wasnt true and wouldnt turn out to be true if u checked. Could be career ending if turned out wasnt true?

AG - if i was to discover further ix about witnesses was needed id do so
NC - DU provided name of healthcare assistant who he said had witnessed the incident and u interviewed RA on 5th July
AG - yes

NC - [reads] What she told u about was a convo between DU and SP about a child going missing. That is a clear contradiction of what DU said as he said he wouldn't interact and this evidence of a convo.
JR interrupts

NC - RA told u a convo had happened...
JR interrupts
J - u need to object not just interrupt
NC - I'll try a different way. RA evidence to u was a flat contradiction to what DU told u?
AG - yes was different to what DU said

NC - now Q on confidentiality. Turn to 184. That's your email to KS inviting her to ix meeting. [Reads 'aboid discussing case'] Thats is standard instruction?
AG - yes and important it stays confidential

NC - 2 reasons important - fairness to person being ixed and other that witnesses dont talk to each other and get stories straight
AG - fairness and integrity yes
NC [reads]
NC - can u help 'ive asked her' who is that
AG - Beth
NC - u are suggesting DU and KS speak to each other

About investigation
AG - no about the meeting. KS is support. I spoke to KS first so she wasnt present in DU interview
NC - u say 'we understand she has a good relationship with u'
AG - yes line manager
NC - were u aware KS had been communicating with other consultants?
AG - no

NC - Shouldn't u have been saying important not to have any more conversations
AG - I asked them to speak about coming together not ix
NC - You'll know by now KS had been vigorously briefing colleagues about SP since December. I can take u to them. 720.

NC - You've seen that before today?
AG - in the bundle yes
NC - 270 as well. That's an email from KS forwarding DU challenging incident, no orry its responding to other group of people and saying will let others consultants know

[NC takes through further docs]
NC - so u know now KS had been vigorously communicating? Do u agree ur ix was already badly compromised
AG - I dont think mix was compromised. I hadn't seen any of this
NC - KS could accompany DU, departure from usual procedure?
AG - no anyone can

A colleague. Not unusual. It was first time I'd been asked for a witness to come with another person so first time for me.
NC - rules being bent for DU?
AG - no

NC - thats an exchange between 22-23rd may between u and DU. U send him his notes of interview and ask to review. He writes back to say notes are accurate let me know if u need anything further
AG - yes

NC - that bland exchange would give impression that there'd been no earlier draft
AG - I was sending the notes
NC - to someone who hasn't seen any other it would look like that was all there was. U sent notes, he sent back and approved
AG - yes
NC - misleading wasnt it?

AG - I don't agree.
NC - [another page] thats q0 days earlier isnt it. DU writes on 14th may [reads]. And looks for guidance as to how he can make editorial changes
AG - witnesses are allowed to do that
NC - he writes on same day and asks if he can listen to the recording

NC - U say transcribed was deleted but [reads 'xould meet up and go through notes'] he accepts. Did u have that meeting?
AG - teams meeting
NC - any notes of it?
AG - no. I msgd to MSF and she said it was ok to discuss

NC - was that a message
AG - no a teams call
NC - have u just realised there'd be a trace of a msg?
AG - I tend to call people
NC - so it would show that there'd been a call with Michele that day?
AG - maybe day before

NC - is it normal practice to meet up with a witness to discuss notes?
AG - first time its been asked of me. Normally ppl agree with notes or they dont.
NC - all those interactions between u and DU, noone else copied?
AG - no

NC - turn here and u will see similar exchange. We see exchange between EC admin and Dr Pitt copied to u. So that approval of notes was admin team?
AG - all notes went out from the admin team.
NC - DU picked the matter up direct with u and didnt copy anyone else in?
AG - yes

NC - I suggest u didnt loop in admin team was bc u knew u shouldn't be meeting up with witness to discuss notes?
AG - dont agree
NC - did u push back on any of the changes?
AG - mostly grammar

NC - its reasonable re exchanges that exchange at 441, the bland one, was to create a misleading paper trail
AG - dont agree
NC - symptomatic to protect DU against all costs?
AG - dont agree

NC - bc SP was guilty of heresy that DU is a man
JR objects - offensive to do what NC is doing in particular to call DU a man. DU is not a man. Im concerned to the latitude given to NC to be so offensive in court.
[Disagreement about the objection]

J - Youre suggesting JR was a heretic
NC - perhaps I should put more clearly
J - I dont think it helps to involve JR'S earlier statement
NC - two things on that. No way was that accusing JR of heresy. Its objecting to what the board regards as a heresy.

NC - Im suggesting the manner which case is put for the board that my recognition DU is a man is heretical is aligned with the oatds treatment of SP who was also treated as a heretic
J - struggling to catch up. What do u mean by heresy
NC - a required creed

J - what do u mean by creed? Its not in EA10
NC - I must be able to use words that arent in EA10
J - so its a gloss. Youre entitled to put gloss on Rs but I'm concerned about Rs counsel. It's involving someone advocating for their client.

J - Would u like time to think about this over lunch? [Converse about time to come back]
We will come back at 2pm.

[HEARING ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH]

Back at 2pm.

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Afternoon session here

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948365575987560737