Thread by @tribunaltweets

Day 7 afternoon session 2 follows here.

We resume:
J - AH you will take an oath
AH - takes oath
J - ask for slow testimony
JR - full name
AH - mary anne hamilton
JR - how long with fife
AH -since 2006
Role
AH - was HR advisor

JR - relationship with SP
AH - none
JR - with DU
AH - again, only conduct hearing
JR - 1313 - email is you to ED 13 feb, asking statements and re fitness to participate. ED updates you - what's your involvement here.
AH - not involved then MSF was, but sick. ED asked for support

AH - usure of date
JR - say talked through process weeks back
AH -yes, she was trying to plan, timescales, would need statements and to give notice of meetings. Email of 13th was chasing that up. Knew SP had been ref'd to OH and needed support, just clarifying

JR - look at 1311 - you send AG statements on 13th march LC and DU
AH - yes when ED gave me statements, at some point ix manager changed
JR - will come to that, to ix planning doc. 1248, who filled out
AH - ED
JR - persons to be iv list
AH -yes
JR - did yo have input?

AH - ED and i discussed, a quick chat
JR - late feb emails 1279 - from Melanie jorgannson, asks is ED the right person for this ix.
AH - we had recieved something from SP solicitor, clear ED had been involved, so when saw, spoke to GM purely to say need to review.

AH - talked through issues and to consider new ix manager
JR - you asked her that?
AH - yes, explained and asked
JR - she said
AH -would think about it and who best placed to pick up
JR - your email to SR, say you are going to suggest
AH - yes

JR - further update 28th feb, GM going to consider
AH - yes, she called next day to suggest AG
JR - who told ED off the ix
AH - don't know actually
JR - 1314 - ref in KS email 15th march, AH says an independent person appointed, ref to AG?
AH - yes
JR - next involvement?

AH - MSF came back and my next involvement was around Nov
JR - when did MSF return? Look at her leave schedule, not sure you've seen, colour boxes are absence, white is in work. White boxes are around April, may, june, jul, aug, sept, then yellow

AH - MSF returned 18th march, phased staggered return and also annual leave
JR - from 18th march your involvement?
AH - none Michele picked it up.
JR - 1512 - email from AG to you 1st Nov, attaches 1st draft report date started 10th oct, submitted 1st nov '24

AH - I give HR support to Angela on other issues anyway and AG said she was also going to need support on this. Spoke to my manager about who, she said me so I saw report
JR - did you read it
AH - yes
JR - any changes
AH - no just general
JR - would you describe role as HR suppor

AH - role to help with pulling report together, sit in on iv, cast eye over report.
JR - meetings had taken place
AH - yes leg work done, pulling together
JR - final version 415 - date started 29 feb (missed) ended 4th dec - a long time, can you explain why
AH- policies are

AH - v specific, need to give witnesses 7 days notice, 14 for SP, need to write up also sickness, leave sometimes have to reschedule for representation, causes protraction
JR - findings at 435 - count down to 6th bullet, says SP did not escalate to head of nursing or grievance

JR - prior to meeting DU on 24 dec. describe what she could have done
AH - B+H policies, if unhappy with management decision, prefer informal, but could use grievance policy.
JR - any thing else
AH - prefer resolution facilitated discussion, if your line manager not satisfied you

AH - go up.
JR - who could facilitate?
AH - line manager, someone from HR, someone from NHS fife could go out to external people, NHS Fife or Lothian

NC - good afternoon, you said about early part of ix, when ED in charge, needed to get statements

NC - odd, wouldn't you normally interview complainant, then accused asap, then use those to gather info
AH - that is the first thing we ask in ix policy, would inform on who else you need to speak to
NC - 3 iterations of the ix report, first at pg 1513 recorded as sub 1st nov

NC - further version 1538, completed 4th Nov, big gap, not a lot happens, final version 13th December. In that gap a request for further iv with ED. Your idea?
AH - just when we reviewed info in report AG wanted to ask some more qu
NC - when versions sent between you, tracking

NC - changes?
AH - no, had teams calls about it
NC - sure it was all AG work
AH - yes, may have suggested alt wording for clarity as a lay person it's AG work
NC - you say teams chat, is that how your colleagues communicate a lot
AH - usually phone or in person, support AG more

broadly
NC - but you do use teams messaging
AH - usually to say can you talk
NC - when board asked for all docs, might expect a few teams chats?
AH - from me?
NC - broadly
AH - didn't really discuss that way see on a regular basis on other issues
NC - 1541 - a lot of talk on

NC - language around T people, suggested breech of art 8 rights to not use their choice of pronouns, privacy
JR - not privacy, dignity
NC - also suggested it's an interference with right to fair trial not to use DU pref pronouns. Summary of DU evidence

NC - you will see DU ref'd to as Their, doesn't use DU prefs pronouns, their experiences, did someone change them, final version of report uses she her
JR - not quite right, 1541, it's a mix. Accept it is used, but not exclusive.
J - page number of equivilent of 1541

NC - 419
J - 419 we see at end of first bullet para, says she can use f changing rooms. another line says she, but the syntax has also changed
NC - the qu is in original, agree with JR its' a mix, but they and their used and later replaced with preference. How come about?
AH - no

NC- recommendations we see first bullet, might include further allegations of misgendering, refs DU as a man and he/him - clear need to be removed from report itself if the case
AH - can't say
NC - the board can't alledge misgendering when it's own report does
AH - >

NC - was anyone reported for misgendering in this report?
AH - no
JR - it is different using they them to she her and he him
J - point is not she/her
NC - email on 3rd jan JH to you among others, her advice to ED on morning of 3rd jan. Trib looked at with others, so will go fast

NC - remind yourself of exchange, go up chain to JH.
AH - I recall email
NC - recall exchange
AH - have read
NC - clear JH exasperated by determined to susx sandie.
AH - gave opinion
NC - went so far as to say ludicrous. I reiterated it was ludicrous to have a nurse at home

NC - is that not exasperated
AH - her opinion
NC - it is ludicrous isn't it, busy dept, nurse with 30 years exp, patients at risk of lives, she was asked to sit home on full pay on wholly inadequate evidence.
AH - no involved in discussion, we give advice.

NC - we see MSF email shares exasperation.
AH - not sure exasperated, advice given was not to susx, but they went through process
NC - your HR colleagues were sceptical of SP leaving cubicles when patients needed her. Say have no evidence she walked out.

AH - we didn't have any evidence, no statements at that point, i was on leave, not involved in chain. JH said we as a team had no evidence at that time.
NC - you never had any
AH - we did from beth
NC - you knew that from DU
AH - no formal statement yet

NC - 275 - email fri 5th jan 12:17, MSF saying ive taken ix up. Clear at this point ED doing it with support from you or MSF
AH - def MSF
NC - ix manager was ED at that point
AH - yes
NC - 13th feb 15:59 email, is it a fair summary to say you are chivvying ED along as not much

NC - had happened
AH - I was wanting to knwo what was going on
NC - so yes
AH - yes
NC - email 14 feb, you say meetings of 6 and 9th cancelled as no statements yet. explain why couldn't just question
AH - need statements to prep questions
NC - 1279 - MJ pointing out prob

NC - with ED conducting ix, complainant says reported issue to manager, which is ED, so not right
AH - yes
NC - your email to SRainer and MJorganson, say you spoke to GM that SP had escalated concerns about F CR, ED didn't escalate, GM looking at who to pick up

NC - it's you saying it's obvious ED can't do it
AH - yes
NC - should have been obv to all
AH - if I was advising I would have said not the right person, yes
NC - 1314 - you aren't cc'd but you are mentioned see it at time?
AH - no
NC - seen in in bundle?
*reads*

NC - if you had been cc'd or seen draft, any concerns about it?
AH - no had a brief conv about replacing, nothing concerning
NC - any comparable email to SP, why change of ix, progress or why ED not involved
AH - would have expected it, from ED or GM

NC - sure JR will take you to it if it exists.
NC - 799 - email from AW 11 th june. not cc'd to you, but fwd'd MJ forwards to you.
AH - yes
NC - AW's email including doc formal complaint, with incident concerns from DU - resus, missing patient
AH - yes

NC - 533 - fwd to you 11th june, first time you saw it.
AH - yes
NC - email 18th april, from AG to KS, you not cc'd AG agreeing to have KS as DU companion, even when KS is a witness. Think saying have a chat with her and arrange is ok
AH - we allow people to bring colleague

NC 0 why not say any colleague not involved?
AH - i wasn't involved, policy allows it but less than ideal
NC - aren't we seeing departure from normal practice for DU
AH - no
NC - 895 - email from AW to the ET and C legal reps, giving explanations, last bullet says planning not

NC - started till april due to leave and annual leave. is that an adequate excuse for not starting on an incident at Xmas eve
AH - planning had to be started again because ix manager changed
NC - reason given was leave
AH - was a lot of leave
NC - you and MSF gave advice

AH - I was fitting in between times
NC - 1260 - sorry 806 - we see email from MSF to various inc you, says know AG not in today, I'm not tomorrow, CLO chasing with urgency - 16th april urgency sets in only because a claim raised. Only thing making urgency perceived

AH - no always do what we can, lots of leave, always endeavour to be timely
NC - even with CLO chasing for a prompt ix, more iv's in may and july, no ix report till 13th Dec. Wholly unacceptable no?
AH - had to speak to many people, couldn't speak to SP till august

NC - finally 441 - I asked AG about this, email exchange originally produced, AG and DU sending notes of iv and DU agreeing accurate iv notes. Agree looking at that, v simple, not imply changes had been made
AH - in isolation i would assume that
NC - aware it's not accurate

NC - reflection of what happened?
AH - no
NC - 847 - email 14th may, read exchange please up to 846. Only produced later. Only just read first time or seen?
AH - I've probably skimmed
NC - perfect sense, reading it now, do you know or did you at the time wehther AG had meet w DU?

AH - don't know MSF might
NC - she's not here is she
AH - no
NC - was that the right way for AG to behaive?
AH - I'd ask for changes in writing
NC - is it right for ix to have meeting alone, with no notes etc with a witness to change staement
AH - nothin in policy

NC - when statement done, witnessed, recorded, notated - but OK to meet in private with no records to change it
AH - not ideal
NC - can you imagine AG offering SP the same opportunity
AH - if SP had asked
NC - confident about that?
AH - fairly conf about it

NC - does that look to you like a deliberate attempt to make a misleading papertrail about adjust ment of notes
AH - no
NC - another case of proper way of doing things to indulge DU
AH - no
NC - symptomatic of protecting DU and punishing SP even if dishonest conduct
AH - no

NC - patient incidents in play in jan, they disappear at DU suggestion, then reappear when ix process
AH - when the ix team met with DU said there were other incidents, ix people asked her to expand and there was a further written statement
NC - a storm going on behind scenes

NC - about how and whether to inc those incidents, about whether to throw allegations at SP, but could harm DU as no evidence and untrue. They were the most serious allegations. The board was worried about harm to DU because untrue, if proved could be serious for DU

NC - there was a lot the Trib hasn't been told about
AH - no
NC - reason board determined to punish SP was that she was guilty of what board thought an unforgivable heresy, won't pretend DU was a woman
AH - sorry
NC - board wanted to punish b'cos unforgivable heresy

AH - don't think board were doing anything, we were ix allegations.
NC - nothing more

P1 - 1314 - taken to this doc twice, by JR and NC, why were you updating KS on change in ix-er.
AH - not sure her manager was around, wanted DU told asap about change in ix-er.

P1 - thanks

J - if keen DU was informed, were you keen SP was also informed.
AH -i expected that to be done by the service
J - HR were involved and gave update to KS, did you speak to service to say youd done that?
AH - asked by my manager
J - who
AH MJ
J - how did she ask you?

AH - i think by email
J - why KS
AH - compassionate way to tell
J - that came from MJ
AH 0 in MSF's absence
J - anything about C being told?
AH - no
J - when was she told
AH - can't recall

JR - You were asked about process of iv's ref'd a flowchart in ix policy

JR - 257 - see flow chart, ID witnesses and consider asking for statements. THis the one?
AH - it is
JR - asked about change in ix communicated to SP, this is her iv with AG, look at entry begining Michele Gilmour, designated support person, what's that role

AH - someone independent of ix who offers support
JR - email from ED to Angie Shepard, on increase in susx, know you aren't at work, witll contact MG to tell sandie. would you have expected her to tell about change in ix too?
AH - yes
JR - emails - something suggested to you

JR - 847 - first email in time is DU 14th may 15:23, then next is from DU at 4:55pm, few hours later. Next from AG 8:38 on 15th may, another from DU to AG just before 6:45. Then a week later email 5, 12:09 AG to DU 22nd may, then reply just after 3 the following day

JR - assist trib, any emails between 22 and 23rd may
AH - no
JR - asked a no of qu on the heresy issue. you answered one, whether board punishing SP, you said no. Others, do you agree patient safety allegations untrue, you can answer
AH - no evidnece, no independent evidence

JR - were they lies
AH - not lies
JR - were the board worried about damage to DU
AH - no
JR - nothing further.
J - thank you - free to go. Also given a supplementary bundle, any objection to that?
*discuss*
NC - No objections
J - who tomorrow
JR - peter donaldson IT witness +

JR - Jim Borwick, 30 mins chief 30 cross, then Maggie Curra.

*RISE*

@threadreaderapp unroll please