GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

(Text from their crowdfunder)

My Details

My name is Sonia Appleby. I am a qualified social worker (1981); adult psychoanalytic psychotherapist (I992); MSc. in health psychology, (research) and MBA. I have a long career safeguarding and protecting children in social care, health and as a children’s guardian in public and private proceedings.

I am currently the Named Professional for Safeguarding Children and the Safeguarding Children Lead at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. I am therefore still employed by the Trust against which I am bringing my claim.

What is Safeguarding?

In all NHS trusts and organisations there are professionals such as myself, who work with other internal departments and external agencies to ensure there are 'root and branch' systems to keep patients and service users safe. This means responding to patient/service users' personal experiences, also including their environmental, familial, community/peer circumstances and sometimes any of the aforementioned domains could require the intervention of other professionals in different agencies. Safeguarding children and young people also concerns ensuring there is a sufficiently, healthy culture that does not unwittingly contribute to potential harm regarding the people who use and deliver NHS services.

Safeguarding within the Trust

My primary task is to ensure that clinicians protect their patients/service users from avoidable harm and are also able to recognize and appropriately respond to situations where under 18s are in need of safeguarding. My secondary task is challenge practices which are either harmful or could lead to harm. The Trust is commissioned by NHS England to deliver a National Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), which provides services for children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The treatments available also include "puberty blockers".

I have sought to ensure the principle of ''safeguarding children and young people'' is upheld whilst service users are being assessed and treated within the GIDS service.

My Claim

I lodged a whistle-blowing claim in November 2019 at the Central London Employment Tribunal. Since then I have made 2 applications to amend my claim as new information came to light.

In my claim, I allege that because I made "protected disclosures" to my line manager regarding concerns raised by GIDS staff ( that the health or safety of patients was being, had been or was likely to be endangered), I was subjected to detriments.

I allege these detriments are:

i) the Tavistock misused it's own procedures to besmirch me and therefore jeopardize the role of safeguarding within the Trust;

ii) there was an unwritten but mandated directive from the Tavistock management that safeguarding concerns should not be brought to my attention despite being the Trust Safeguarding Children Lead;

iii) and, clinicians were discouraged from reporting safeguarding concerns to me.

I also allege various other detriments.

Further to disclosures made to Newsnight by former staff, BBC Newsnight produced a programme focusing on the allegation that the Trust did not want to report any concerns to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962

and you can watch it here

Shovelled.

manderleyagain looks like Hannah Barnes @hannasbee is live tweeting.

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1404336944906186755

Ok so it looks like today is for arguments about document bundles to be submitted to and read by the employment tribunal panel, and, crucially, the Tavistock's redactions.

Signlbox, thanks for that.
Shocking that sonia hasn't been allowed to see which managers are talking about her in the transcripts.

very similar to the Allison Bailey case

Yes it is shocking. It must have been very difficult for her to continue working at the trust. knowing that people have made such serious accusations against you.

Following

@drwitch

very similar to the Allison Bailey case

Isn't it just?

These sound like very heavy reductions from the Tavistock.

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee
Short pause while Sonia Appleby’s team discuss an application being considered.
EJG - employment judge Goodman
SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, counsel for Tavistock
AP - Anya Palmer, counsel for SA
@hannahsbee
·
29m
AP - wants names of interview transcripts with Dr Sinha to be unredacted. (HB note: These are interview transcripts conducted as part of GIDS review in 2018/19)

AP says claimant in ‘invidious position’ having to guess who is talking about her.
Counsel want names of five managers unredacted along with one other.

AP unable to satisfy herself that everything ‘relevant’ in transcripts has been unredacted

AP: “There certainly looks like there is relevant information behind the redaction”

“We are not happy with the state Of the redactions.”

AP quotes from another transcript of interview with Tavi manager which says that there were “concerns” about claimant’s “approach” to GIDS cases. Transcript says “some may have felt it was a bit transphobic.” AP makes argument that SA’s team needs to know identity of manager

AP says that everything contained in transcripts is relevant to SA’s claim

8m
SA’s ‘whistleblowing’ starts in 2017. Several protected disclosures take place in 2017 and 2018. Alleged detriments begin in 2018

watching.

Fellow Social Worker checking in. Good luck Sonia!

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

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.

Oh the suspence!

Or possibly suspense...

Do we know what time this kicks off today?

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

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

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

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

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

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”

Placemarking to catch up later.

@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.

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