NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #6

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely can be obtained by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2

Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3

Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4

Thread 5: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5

I think that any accusation of transphobia gets investigated. I know of many cases in nursing and other healthcare roles they always get dropped eventually

I was halfway down that post, before I realised it wasn't some kind of linguistically clever analogy 😁

Ah, heating on, does that mean cordial relationships? Heating off after 10pm, does that relate to another shift?

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder sorry I’m not privy to the witness list but agree hope she is called (somehow doubt it though!).

NC wants to know and see the documents that relate to these allegations, and any others, to check they were properly investigated and that a conclusion was reached that clearly explains how a plan of suspension then supervised practice was arrived at.

Especially within that timescale, given how many staff must have been on leave over the holiday time that encompasses the "special" period of SP's suspension.

I am curious to learn if DU/BU made contemporaneous Datix incident and risk reports about those 2 incidents at the heart of the allegations.

Is that not a bit like proudly saying you were responsible for them bringing in a new approach to health and safety at the nuclear power plant after you managed to cause it to meltdown ?

Perhaps soon Dr U and JR will be able to claim joint responsibility for clarifying the law around access to single sex changing rooms in the workplace? That will look great on both of their CVs.

Thank you NotMaroonButRaspberry for the details about the triage/A&E incident.

I have to admit? confess? that that incident did set alarm bells ringing, because I'm all in favour of somebody doggedly following up on things that don't feel right e.g. 'Hang on, there's a patient listed that I haven't seen - is everything all right?'.

That patient could have been anywhere, 'fallen between the cracks', and in trouble - nightmare occurrences like that have been known to happen in A&Es.
In which case DrU could have done something really valuable/saved someone's live/been a hero.

But he didn't and wasn't: SP knew that the patient had voluntarily left, and passed on that information.

DrU's complaint wasn't that SP didn't give him a satisfactory answer about the patient in question - which I would consider not just unprofessional but dangerous - but that she wasn't sufficiently chummy to him in so doing.

Yes.

Given that DU made contemporaneous notes and Datix reports at other times, it will be of significant note if he did/didn't re these.

Given the tribunal was given access to, and discussed at length the WhatsApp messaged SP sent, and even Facebook postings of even MR Peggie, it feels there must be a lot still to come about DU phone notes....

DrU's complaint wasn't that SP didn't give him a satisfactory answer about the patient in question - which I would consider not just unprofessional but dangerous - but that she wasn't sufficiently chummy to him in so doing.

it is that, isn't it?

Sorry, I'm just struggling to get my head around what is essentially one incident of wanky tone policing being thought of as significant enough to bring to an employment tribunal as evidence of a nurse's lack of patient care!

Thank you to everyone for the clarification, though.

and roll on Monday!

When a barrister says something like "I am instructed to say", that is code for "I know this wouldn't fool a five-year-old, but my client insists that I say this".

A barrister cannot knowingly lie to the court but, provided they don't know for certain that it is untrue, they can say whatever their client tells them to say, no matter how unlikely it is. In a criminal case, for example, if their client admits to committing the crime a barrister cannot argue that they didn't. However, if the client says they didn't do it, their barrister can argue that even if there is a video of their client committing the crime.

Absolutely.

There are many times it would be diligent to check things out and of course tragic things have happened. For this reason we ask patients leaving at any point to inform the reception and admin staff of their decision to help us out, we also have a log on each electronic record to document that we called their name and at what time etc. it is not remotely unusual to call someone who is in the loo/on the phone/outside smoking, and for this reason we try at least 3 times with other patients in between.

It is also important to remember that a patient with capacity who has walked in to seek treatment voluntarily, can equally voluntarily walk out - and we have to have very good grounds for hunting them down! As this was a triaged patient, there would have been a documented assessment of their medical need and relevant social factors such as attending with a parent who seems to be relating well to the child and no history of social services input for eg. DU was being doubly diligent in looking for SP to ask that there wasn't a concern she hadn't documented (a slight pass agg dig maybe) and then received a reassuring answer.

He just didn't get a wave and eye contact. So he logged it as a concern.

Well quite. Never a a bad idea to follow up on stuff like that. It must happen all the time as well - parents take a child to A&E just in case, are triaged and told 'probably OK but if you want to wait, it'll be .... hours' and the parents think, we'll just see the GP tomorrow. Surely just takes a 'Where's patient x gone?' and a 'oh they were triaged, told not urgent and decided to go home'.

And this seems to have happened. But not in simpering enough manner. In a busy department, where I can imagine many interactions between staff are quick and slightly cursory in tone because of demands/time/not messing about.

This has been published in the Telegraph, although it's just England and Wales

https://archive.ph/iy9ig

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/08/stop-using-trans-pronouns-in-sex-crime-cases-judges-told-uk/

I’m not comfortable with slating Jane Russell KC. She’s got no option but to play the hand she’s dealt. She has to be able to trust her clients to provide all required information.

NMC would be asked to consider if what Dr Upton saw as her transphobia meant that she couldnt or woulnt act professionally with regards to him or other trans people. The supervised practise will presumably be justified on the same basis.

As she was acting professionally towards him (calling him Beth, giving him privacy in the changing room, staying away from him in case he felt "unsafe" ) I'd hope the NMC would see this as an inexperienced person raising unfounded accusations and shut it down quickly. Still Sandie cant rely on that, especially as NHS Fife didnt do that, and shouldnt have to go through anything like that for such non events.

I'd assume SP made some sort of note on the patient during triage. Would a&e doctors normally bother to query a patient leaving if a nurse with 30 years experience thought they werent urgent?

Your comment reminded me of the fantastic cartoonist Jacky Fleming in her book "the trouble with women" showing how women with men's legs are simply unwomanly (it was published in 2016 when we didn't have all this trouble with trans activists, etc).

The book is available in all good bookstores and is a brilliant read.

No, jointly and severally doesn't mean they each have to pay half. It means that either of them can be held liable for the whole amount.

There won't be any award for libel in this trial. Employment tribunals cannot deal with libel claims. If SP wants to sue for libel, that would be a separate case. The disclosure of alleged misconduct is protected by qualified privilege so, in order to win a case against DU, SP would need to show that DU knew his allegations were false. Since DU doesn't seem to know much about what a nurse should or shouldn't do (indeed, he doesn't seem to know much about anything other than his own feelings), that might be a hard case to make.

Sorry, but not exactly. She should be familiar enough with the disclosure and case to spot glaring gaps in the disclosure. As NC did.

I've had enough advices from barristers in my time to know that spotting gaps and checking why there are gaps is exactly what they do!

If you're referring to my saying "anti trans beliefs beyond the obvious basic GC ones", you're right, I misspoke. The basic gc views, that sex is immutable etc., are best thought of as pro female rather than anti trans, as the motivation for acting on the views is usually the protection of women, not the harming of trans people (e.g., trans men are usually included in the women whom we aim to protect). Of course TRAs disagree, and if they feel those beliefs are anti trans, it doesn't much help to say they aren't - they are views that are against some of the things TRAs want, so it may be, as they say, semantics.

My point is that views we would all see as anti trans do exist. It is possible for someone to hate trans people, as a group, and doubtless there are people who do. I think those people are wrong, and I don't share their position - nevertheless, I don't think it is, in itself, illegal.

Funny how JR found - quickly - 4 emails that had not been disclosed. She clearly knew that something had happened before the formal investigation. She just argued that it wasnt an investigation, despite it leading to Sandie's suspension.

I still don't understand how this case made it to trial? Did SP refuse a settlement?

The instructing solicitor for the respondants, Adam Watson, has been with the Central Legal Office since 2016 (and was seconded to a Union to gain experience of ET). He also has a Masters in HR Management.

At some point it must have clicked that the changing room provision, or rather the failure to provide a female-only space, wasn't legal. Add to that the Haldane judgement confirmed that men cannot self-identify into female spaces (and they are considered male without a GRC). This isn't obscure bits of law, certainly not for organisations with staff who need to change at work.

This is before the plain mad bullying allegation, the botched investigation/missing paper trail and the fitness to practice allegations about events that seem fairly normal to my non-medical mind.

His team would have prepared a briefing for JR and her team. At that point she could have said "this will cost a bomb and your defence looks pretty weak".

I'm not sure whether this article has been mentioned before (apologies if it has): murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2024/10/15/the-nhs-fife-case-what-do-we-know-about-how-decisions-have-been-made/

There will be a solicitor and possibly a junior as well though? It doesn’t all fall on JR

that may well be the case, we will never know the legal advice though due to privilege. And of course you can only settle a case that both parties want to settle.

Oooh - this is interesting.
Signs maybe that the trans stranglehold on law makers is perhaps coming to an end? Which will massively benefit women and children.

@prh47bridge You seem to be saying that a barrister has no responsibility to the client to state when the case is weak and they are just a mouthpiece. Do you mean that?

The barrister is the person advising on the merits of the claim so, no, while it doesn't necessarily all fall on her, I would have expected her to notice while she was assessing the claim's prospects. Running to hearing would be based on her advice, so if she missed the gaps in her review, then it's her who then ends up looking awkward in court when her opponent picks up on the omission. As we saw!