GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

Is this normal? Seems very aggressive handling of a witness.

AS said it had become political. Only later in 2018 were we told not to go to SA.

YG: from 2017 and GR being appointed GIDS safeguarding lead he was first point of call. AS agrees.

YG: can’t see that AS didn’t take any concerns to HR.
AS: “No. I did it directly with the medical director.”

Gill Rusbridger also advised me that a really good place to raise these concerns was in the review with the medical director.

YG: if it’s true - and I say it’s not - that these directives are being given you are not giving any opportunity for these concerns to be properly investigated through the proper channels.

AS disagrees. Says he was advised best place to raise concerns was in the review

YG says that is much later. Suggests he’s been talking to others who are dissatisfied for whatever reason.
AS disagrees. Says he’s also talking about clinicians still in the service

AS: recurring theme in his supervision with Garry Richardson was don’t go to social care because they won’t know what to do with cases involving gender identity

YG: your responsibility to refer anyway, as an experienced clinician.

AS: wasn’t experienced then, but Garry felt that social services wouldn’t know what to do. In my other jobs we would do this as standard practice
YG suggests it’s ‘completely untrue’ that GR would seek to dissuade from making a referral

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4271195-Gender-A-wider-lens-podcasts?noti=1#108221768

If anyone wants to find out a little more, Sue and Marcus Evans clinicians who both worked at GIDs, provide a lot of background on the case in this podcast.

AS: recurring theme in his supervision with Garry Richardson was don’t go to social care because they won’t know what to do with cases involving gender identity

Say what now?

Thank you - not sure how I missed that

Ah Find you're quicker than me. Fab work BTW.

Hasn't someone just said they think YG isn't across all this? I hope it's that way round.

SA - Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) witness for SA
EJG - employment judge Goodman
SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, counsel for Tavistock
AP - Anya Palmer, counsel for SA

Do we know who AS is?

YG: there’s no reference to that in your witness statement

AS: para 42 I’m talking about Gill Rusbridger

Would I be right in thinking this does not look like YG is on top of this?

YG says implication Is that AS speaks to GIll Rusbridger in 2019. AS disagrees and says it shows that it was 2017

YG challenges AS that he claims things had been difficult for four years - back to 2015
AS: yes. Looking back it was ‘very challenging.’ Talking about risk related issues was v challenging. There was fear that it would be seen as transphobic and there was pressure from LGBT grps

Who wanted early medical intervention

AS: when it comes to clinical matters I think you're wrong. Had sought consultation from Dr Rob Senior and safeguarding expertise in and outside the trust. I have escalated clinical matters on multiple times

AS: In 2017 I had two or three meetings with Gill Rusbridger - Speak up Champion - and shared them with Dr Sinha in 2019 too. On all these occasions I shared my concerns

AS says he had others too.

YG says that’s not in his witness statement. AS says meeting with GR and Dr Sinha are in statement. YG says will check.

As: with Gill is wasnt talking about SA but rather my safeguarding concerns and lack of safeguarding referrals from GIDS. At that point there was no clear direction from Polly (Carmichael) not to go to Sonia

YG: there’s no reference to that in your witness statement

AS: para 42 I’m talking about Gill Rusbridger

@hannahsbee

YG quotes AS as saying he worked in other CAMHS settings. as: “safeguarding is safeguarding” whatever environment we are operating in

YG: you had responsibility if you were concerned to log an incident
AS: no. Would always check with a line manager before that. That’s best practice

YG: doesn’t seem to be any evidence of you logging an incident or escalating a case you didn’t think had been dealt with. Nothing ‘concrete’ to illustrate your worries.

Placemarking to catch up later.

AS says it’s an error - should read 2017 GR given title of safeguarding lead at GIDS

YG says that’s an important error.

AS apologises for error

YG says that suggests there maybe other errors in his witness statement. Other explanation “you want to make it look like it’s all happening much later” and trying to ‘mislead’ the tribunal

AS says it’s an honest mistake. “I’ve raised the same safeguarding issues…in multiple fora in the trust…way before the claim from Miss Appleby”

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee

AS: no problem at all with day to day supervision/line management from GR. just when it came to complex cases

YG says there was at least one example where SA was contacted.

AS says case being referred to was referred to SA by his colleague

YG says AS must have know GR was GIDS safeguarding lead from summer 2017. AS agrees. Says mistake is made in his statement but is checking

YG says he was perfectly capable to go to anyone with a safeguarding concern. AS says in practice he was actively discouraged from going to SA

AS says he can’t comment. His colleague made referral, not him. AS says there were times he wanted advice from someone more experienced than Garry Richardson (GR) - GIDS safeguarding lead

YG says AS did not make a complaint either about GR not being able to advise him adequately or that he was instructed not to go to SA

YG puts to him that it was not true that AS had these concerns and if he had he would have raised them at the time

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee

YG says he was perfectly capable to go to anyone with a safeguarding concern. AS says in practice he was actively discouraged from going to SA

YG cites documentation showing AS and colleague referred a case to SA. Suggests there was no difficulty in doing this. AS says he was away. YG says there appears to be no surprise from SA that she’s been contacted

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee
·
18s
AS says he disagrees that he was ever encouraged to speak to SA

YG questions whether he was familiar with standard operating procedure. AS says he was

YG sets out list of safeguarding contacts contained in document. AS says this was never shared during his time in the service and was published a month after he left

YG suggests it’s an updated document

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee
·
32s
THREAD: Day 2 - Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust Employment Tribunal

Technical problems but can now hear

Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) witness for SA

Or possibly suspense...

Oh the suspence!

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee**

EJG: unredacted statements of six Tavi employees mentioned to be sent confidentially to SA’s counsel. Does not imply anything wrong with disclosure but to ensure public confidence

Hearing adjourned until tomorrow morning.

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee**

YG “takes great exception” to AP’s comments

YG says it was agreed on what basis transcripts would be used and which terms would be looked at eg
Claimants name, ‘safeguarding lead.’
This explains docs in the way you see them - the complaint that there are bits missing is because of the approach agreed, not Tavi action.

YG explains that anonymity of those who spoke to Dr Sinha as part of GIDS review were assured of anonymity

YG says ‘very dispiriting’ that nothing explained in application as to why certain interviewees should be disclosed. Stresses again the importance of anonymity.

YG says claimant hasn’t established ‘necessity’ to disclose

YG: “Risk of expanding out” to matters that are not of concern to this tribunal. May be other issues at the Trust, but the scope of the tribunal is pretty narrow. It’s about SA’s actions, not what anyone else may have disclosed.

“Claimant seeking to expand out huge numbers of people who were promised confidentiality…wholly wrong to suggest the trust has done anything underhand or mischievous…”

YG: “no good reason why these individuals should be identified or why there should be any further exploration into what they say.”

AP: press are entitled to see witness statements and anything referred to in those. Will take considerable amount of work to redact all names of those mentioned who are not witnesses

AP: a ‘minimalist approach’ to redaction should be taken

ETJ: no reason to anonymise witnesses.
Judge discussing how other people will be referred to.

Discussion between all parties on level of redaction to be used throughout proceedings.

EJG: not practical to undergo extensive redaction now, but tribunal will exercise caution in naming others in its judgement.

YG says that redacted parts of transcripts don’t contain the search terms agreed in previous order agreed by Judge Norris and are not to do with claimant’s concerns.

YG insists there is nothing else contained in documents that is relevant.
AP challenges disclosure made by respondent