Thread by @tribunaltweets

Scheduled start time in Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton is 10 am. Our reporting will be on this thread. Two witnesses scheduled for today:
Lindsey Nicoll, emergency nurse practitioner Fiona Wishart, emergency nurse practitioner

Our previous coverage is found on our Substack here:
open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…
Reporting on Part 1 here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

A selection of press coverage is here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/press-covera…

A reminder on the limitations of our reporting.

Judge's admonition to witnesses.

Abbreviations

Additional abbreviations
JD - Jamie Doyle
JH - Jackie Herkes - HR advisor
MC - Dr Maggie Currer, Deputy clinical lead
PD - Peter Donaldson, Information Security Manager, NHS Fife
JB - Jim Borwick, IT forensics expert
LN - Lindsey Nicoll, nurse practitioner ED

NP - nurse practitioner
FW - Fiona Wishart,nurse practitioner ED

We hope to begin soon. Hearing room visible on CVP, no judge or panel and no visible witness yet.

Judge and Panel arrived. We begin.
JR speaking - cannot hear.
JR - we have a couple of matters, there's a proposed short written intervention from <missed> we'd like to include.
JR - heard from C last night, 2 new witnesses who came forward over the w/end, we object in

principle. Want to know what they have to say, very late.
JR - 3,000 new pages, it seems unreasonable given that subs start tomorrow.
JR - 4th, discussing availability for subs some time in August and travel arrangements for Thursday.
NC - arguing in favour of adding further

witnesses, thats what JR said about LN, FW today when added at late date. Tribunal has been reluctant to curtail Rs activity to defend action. Rs have been shambolic in how they conducted, the need for FW, LN should have been easy for Rs to anticipate, it should not have been

diff for them to expect her to dispute. It can some as no surprise that SP denies she is racist. If Rs had proceeded, they would have i/w FW in relation to Xmas eve incident. They could have i/w her in that i/x. That should have lead them to LN, and we would have been in a very

diff position. I/w note for both wits would have been in bundle, and the additional docs now would have already been in the bundle, pages 1705-1712, messages from Benidorm Party Chat (?), text messages, the C would have been able to give evidence in chief on those and x'd

by JR. We wait to hear what FW, LN have to say. It is clear that we will need to recall C to put points to her that were not put in Feb. And call 2 wits who came forward very late, they were reluctant to come forward because of climate of fear in NHS Fife.
J - relevance

NC - JR has made much of fact that SP was only woman to object, that is not so,
J - how long to take, recall, 2 wits
NC - recall will be in JRs hands, perhaps 1/2 hour in chief, 2 other witnesses combined an hour in chief,
J - are they available
NC - yes, one attend by CVP

NC - one will give direct evidence about material added to bundle at a late stage, another member of the group chat
J - so that's the witnesses, are you seeking further productions
NC - almost entirely further extracts from the group chat, speak to credibility of LN, 24 pages

J - are they available now? Ready now.
NC - yes.
J - the simplest thing is to forward to AW, so they can take instructions. What's your view on subs?
NC - in light of these issues, we are in real difficulty, I don't think we can do by Thursday, suggest adjourn

for written subs, then convene in person for short oral submissions and Panel Qs.
Difficulty - JR not available in August or September, I have cases in October, November we may not be able to reconvene until December. Options, 2 wits today, will you call C first then new wits?

J - do you want to take instructions first?
NC - yes, come back after break.
J - we could possibly start early, at 9 am. Tomorrow if we start MC at 9, we will hopefully finish x by 10:30,
NC - I'm afraid there has been a change in my x plan, given that MC say that bio sex is

not binary and very complicated, it's time consuming to unpick something like that
JR - I'm concerned MC is only involved in one issue in the case
J - I haven't heard all her evidence
J - say we finish with MC by 12, <missed Tuesday aft plan>
J I have something on Weds at

11 am, start subs at 9 on Wednesday, resume after lunch, then Thursday at 9 am. Normally in Scotland we have submissions immediately after evidence, I would need persuading that we should do anything different.
NC - can we come back to you on that? See if we can find a day in

September, one of my concerns is whether the Tribunal itself will have the ability to absorb our subs on the legal position.
J - I have to see your subs first to be able to answer that.
NC - can we come back to you on that, establish feasibility of a day in Sept, don't want to

J - don't want to go part heard again.
<J& Panel discussing>
J - application under rule 36 do you have comments?
NC - none
J - JR said 3,000 pages, you said 24 which is correct
NC - 24 pages
J - much more manageable
JR - 2 new witness tomorrow aft?

J - we need to look at material and consider, how long
NC - that's up to JR
JR - its 24 pages, manageable, 1 wit on group chat, 1 wit on other objections to CR.
J - we need to think about all this
JR - we object to CVP witness, all other witnesses have appeared in person

J - we need to consider all of this, anything else, 20 minute break.
Court rises.
Morning thread will continue here.

Difficulties with JR microphone in first part of morning session. Adding without comment.

https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1949765577049788481

Panel returns.
JR - I have instructions on 2 thing, 1st on add wits and docs, the Rs don't accept that they approached in a shambolic manner, hyperbolic, arguments are rehash of earlier hearing and we object. We remind the Tribunal that this is supposed to be the last day of

evidence. C has known about other objector from the beginning, should have been part of case and brought forward then. And on Benidorm Group Chat (BCG) since January, they have known that we wanted to call LN since 15 July prelim hearing, likely 2 weeks earlier

too late now, 4 weeks later.
On messages, they are being transcribed by others, going up on Twitter, where these aren't sufficiently redacted, they might identify patient detail, might also identify individuals unnecessarily, expose them to unfair media scrutiny. I haven't seen

add'l production, various problems.
Onto submissions, concerned that things are about to be derailed, not in anyone's interest. Adjourned in February, had 6 months to work on submissions, another long adjournment will impact quality of justice and fairness, unhelpful to have

another long delay. Makes it more difficult for Tribunal, prejudices both sides, impacts quality of justice. We say don't let momentum drop now, keep momentum going. Tribunal time is an important public resource and finding new dates, for new sitting time will waste more of

that precious resource. It creates 3 difficult consequences for everyone; unexpected events, such as in this sitting, has affected Panel members could affect barrister etc, impact of prolonged uncertainty for all parties, and 3rd that the longer matters are left unresolved

the ongoing media circus may further impact panel, witnesses and advocates. We are happy to be creative to get subs done this week. Nothing further.
J - not yet seen the productions, have you seen the email
JR - not yet, email has been forwarded to me
J - how long do you need

JR - I need 15 minutes, but not now
J - before witnesses?
JR - I should see before calling witnesses
NC - should I wait or do you want to hear now
J - now please on these points
NC - the difficulties have been in the manner that which Rs have conducted case

JR says that we knew about other objector a long time ago, we knew about many objectors long ago, but the price of objecting was obvious, it is important that the Tribunal hear from this witness. R's treatment of C is the most obvious sign of how any other wits would be treated

C is the only one who came forward. JR says C has known about LN since early July. We did not see material from group chat until last week. And other participant to that 2 way chat, is the only other person who can give evidence about that is our other witness. It would be

strikingly unjust to allow the R to call one of parties to that chat and not allow C to call the other.
On JRs general point about productions before she's seen them, in the 26 pages we have provided we have already redacted them, only 2 indvs are identified, so no problem.

And there are patient details in one, LN needs to see the unredacted version, but that is simply done.
J - how long until available, given difficulties here.
NC - it will take us some time to get out to a print shop.
J - and on submissions
NC - majority of evidence has been

given in last 2 weeks. There is a great deal to be done, compare evidence, find alignment, it is unrealistic to expect C to be ready.
J - in Scotland we do that all the time, including complicated cases, doesn't mean that we need to do in this case. How long do you propose?

NC - 2 ways; adjourn for written subs then come back in person for questions from Panel and/or brief oral argument. Our pref'd option. Failing that we could proceed to oral submissions but would ask to supplement in writing by end of August. It is not merely a complicated

factual case, it is a case of real importance, it is likely that the losing party may appeal at least once, it's the first case since the practical working out of FWS judgment will have to be addressed for single sex spaces. It is being avidly watched by press and general public

It needs to be approached with caution and care. And in light of what JR has said about her subs including ECHR materials., It's difficult to see how the Tribunal can absorb the material and formulate questions for us based on submissions. It's not a normal case.

J - looking at the options, <missed>, it would be less a matter of legal argument then factual arguments. One way to have subs on legal background with add'l subs on the facts of the case.
NC - yes that could work too,
J - will save time, don't know, just looking at various

options.
NC - on balance I would say not that way, it's an iterative process trying to split facts from law, and would be difficult and confusing to split.
J - you may not know, do you have a timetable for remaining wits
NC - don't know we will need to take instructions after

we have heard them, we may get one additional wit in today, possibly get through all wits with part of Wednesday morning.
J - JR anything?
JR - I don't know when NC's proposal allows for panel qs
J - yes, could be in writing
JR - yes, also I would like to respond to Cs

submissions.
J - could also be in writing.
JR - yes
J - we need to go discuss. 5 minutes, perhaps work on getting copies of new bundle material.
Court rises.
End of morning part one thread.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.