NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #19

[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 February 2025 and was expected to continue for 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It seems that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July but it wasn't completely clear whether it might end a day or two later.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February.

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

However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently caused by a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but don't count on it.

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: https://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
Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18

Some dumbish questions from me:

If they grant a court ordered for forensic investigation of DUs phone, and suddenly there is a lack of evidence such as notes or the phone has magically disappeared through whatever means; recontracting, damage, loss, theft whatever

Does this have further implications, such as can it be seen as willfully erasing evidence?

Can a sudden absence of these contemporaneous notes be used in SPs favour?

One-Upton-ship if you ask me

Well you certainly aren't allowed to say oneupMANship

Has anyone else read Jonathan Browns comments on x? He’s an advocate at Faculty of Advocates. Quite clear that Fife have shown themselves massively incompetent by relying on the word of a not legally trained de advisor rather than seeking guidance from NHS Scotlands shit hot legal department. And says so much more. I tried to make a link but it proved beyond me. Worth a read. He clearly thinks Fife have lost.

That was my understanding, that if they basically came back with a 'the dog ate my homework' defence, or anything that looked untoward, then the court would take that into account. But of course it may not be granted anyway.

Yeah the "my phone fell off a ferry into the sea" didn't work so well for Rebecca Vardy

I hope NC gets the phone analysed. Upton made a lot out of his 'contemporaneous notes' which were on his phone. That was his evidence and the court hasn't seen it. Given Upton has made so much of it as a basis for his allegations, they should see it - or I hope that's what they'll decide. It will help them to determine how much weight to give his evidence.

Who even knows if the notes exist. Someone who can fabricate being the opposite sex can frankly fabricate and 'identify into' anything.

yes. They've only got his word for any of it.

I'm beginning to think maybe Naomi will get a chance to look at his phone. He's such an unreliable witness, and clearly fudges things.

If the judge wants to see any evidence, he'll absolutely tell him to hand handover his bloody phone.

Sorry I don't have any links. Long gone articles in the times.

It was Right around the time when The Times and The Telegraph were beginning to wise up, and a lot of that was down to JoMarch.

You'd see a lot of comments speculating, opining, some of it completely uninformed, and she would come on with the facts, the figures, and the argument. But in a very reasonable way. In those days, be kind was still very much the default position, so approach was important.

She was always there, under every article.

There are certainly lots of gaps, inconsistencies, suspected lies and questions unanswered. We really need Miss Marple. She'd sort it out and would have absolutely no time for the nonsense idea that humans can change sex. She might even whip out her knitting and look sternly over her glasses, whilst simultaneously explaining all the inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence.

You are absolutely right.
I was thinking about this earlier in the gyms open plan changing area.
I bet there are women who would avoid getting changed at work or get changed in a toilet cubicle rather than share a space with men.
Then it occurred to me, thats possibly not even always possible for nurses etc if they get covered in other people's body fluids. They need to get changed ASAP

Someone more knowledgeable in these areas said on the thread earlier today, if they don't produce the paper trail/evidence to back up their verbal statements then the tribunal may not attach much value to their statements.
The judge made a comment to ED, when he asked her if she'd made notes, that lawyers like notes!

A dumb question from me, this may already have been answered but I've not been able to fully read all the threads.

The case is adjourned until July?
What happens if any of the people leave NHS Fife between now and then, do they still need to go to court?

Heaven forbid if someone dies or become incapacitated can their notes still be used?

They probably won't need very much beyond the kind of data that can't be permanently deleted, bearing in mind that Fife will almost certainly be handing stuff over too. If dropping the phone in the sea hadn't already been done, that would be the best option. If DU selectively deletes at this stage, but any other party caves in and discloses their side, it makes DU look even worse than if he just hands over the phone and prays to the special new and improved FSM for a miracle to happen.

I expect DU is going to have a prolonged breakdown at this stage, very likely quite genuine because the worst outcome has already happened, and will keep on happening for the forseeable future.

Almost certainly no, because the numbers of complainants, if any, and if recorded as such, would be so small that it would be legitimate to refuse so as not to risk identifying them.

And, more importantly, noone would have been managed out for that reason, you would need to FOI the number of dismissals for top secret patient safety reasons! Or the number of 'supportive' dismissals done to protect them from themselves. /s

The problem is that they originally scheduled a 2 week hearing that now looks woefully inadequate. Naomi Cunningham has yet to receive let alone read all of the documents that Fife/Upton were meant to disclose but didn't

The judge and barristers are all booked to start new trials next week

The delay might help SP's case as a lot of the non-disclosed documents were significant

Plus NC will need to make written applications to the judge if she wants DU s phone or to add KS as respondent 3

KS might be feeling a bit shaky. I assume that she will have been told about the adjournement and warned to stay away from details of the case.

I wonder if we should call OH and get an appointment for KS to check she is OK to turn up in July? Might be a bitter pill - but no matter - if it was good enough for SP then it's good enough for KS!

I've been scrolling through the TT threads for this as I knew he'd been asked to ensure he didn't delete the 'contemporaneous notes' by NC & found the section covering this:

"NC contemporaneous notes on phone] reads dates
DU I understand. That is what contemporaneous means.
NC Last wrote note on 28/12
NC notes still on your phone. Backed up? May be q imps you don't delete them.
DU Not intending to."

She's definitely after these notes & the metadata but I think she may also be looking for call logs linked to the advice the BMA gave him that he couldn't remember the details of, but which he held back completing his statement for. That helps her then pin down what to ask the BMA for in asking them to disclose their records on his contact & what he asked them for in relation to the incident etc.

The BMA's v swift response felt odd in all of this, and I think NC feels there's something in their involvement that's worth looking at. So my guess is the phone forensic analysis is to cover both the notes and the call logs, and maybe other bits I've missed.

I understand why it's been adjourned.

What i mean is if KS or anyone else leaves NHS Fife, can they still be asked to come to court?
What about if DU takes ill and can't come back to court can his notes still be used?

It's especially odd as recent hearing also heard that employment advice is hard to get.

ED stated and I'm not quoting word for word as I can't remember, but in essence please understand that this incident happened over the holidays and employment advice is next to impossible to get over this period.

So if ED couldn't seek advice which she understood her role to be IX at the time, how come DU managed to get advice.

I asked a similar question in a previous thread about sick leave.

Basically depends on the sickness and the evidence provided to prove you can't be present. Going off with stress for example you'd still be expected in court. A stroke or aneurism may afford leeway or call for an adjournment etc.

If KS leaves my limited understanding is she would still be called on. Employers have to keep staff data for a statutory number of years don't they? So a SAR would be able to be made for anything KS wouldn't have access to immediately and she wouldn't be subject to further work related discussion, just discussion of what's already happened.

I don't know if she'd be represented legally by NHSFife though if she's no longer an employee. Maybe someone more litigiously literate could enlighten.

Any employee who has a key role & is listed as a witness would still be expected to testify, irrespective of whether they continue to be employed or not. I had a civil case a few years ago I took over (IANAL) & the person who did the investigation (who left) was the one called to give evidence as he'd compiled the investigation. It was his statement in the bundle, so he was the one who had to have his evidence questioned.

With KS, I don't know if NHS Fife would fund, for her, her own legal representation (as NC intends to ask for her to be added as a respondent) if she left, I don't know how that works & likely depends on the terms of the contract & ins/legal cover that might specify. I don't think her attendance can be compelled, but massive inferences on a failure to attend & answer Qs on her actions/statements in the aftermath of what happened.

I had a separate case involved in a police prosecution where I was summoned as a witness (my statement was key evidence, so I was told) and the police sent officers to my work to find me & serve a very short notice summons (they apparently couldn't contact me - they had my email 😒) & a failure to turn up in a criminal prosecution I think has more serious implications. Civil court, which is what SP's case is, there's not a lot can be done with failure to attend.

I'm not that knowledgeable on the legal side of things but I've just been involved in litigated cases a long time so seen a few different things linked to trials etc. as a result. It's still guess work re SP's case & the other witnesses still to be questioned.

A slightly different question.

I assume DU is continuing to work in Fife. What toilets will they be using?

Will female colleagues be expected to ‘be kind’ even if they feel uncomfortable. Or is Fife NHS sufficiently chastened, or worried about further legal action, to put interim policies in place?

The Gen Z kids have no time for the trans ideology. I have 3 of them and my youngest describes it as “cringe”.

I’m a mature student at uni and so I’m surrounded by gen z every day. None of the ones I know believe any of it. It was once brought up by a 25yo gay man who said he doesn’t go to pride anymore because of the fact that it’s been completely high jacked so we had quite a discussion about it.

It’s over for the TRA’s. It’s just some of them haven’t realised it yet.

Breathless placemark!

This is the creator of the cartoon (and many others):
https://x.com/5uffragette

If you know the handle, you can copy it from nitter and vice versa, not the full links but the handle after the domain name and go from there.