This is a civil trial (not criminal) so while it’s a very serious allegation we don’t yet have evidence of it - ie deliberate lie or collusion.
What we should remember is that the evidential burden here is different - so they don’t need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt she is a liar - but rather on the balance of possiblities it’s likely she’s a liar. I’d say she met that theshold - as she says I can’t say - but you can’t prove. It’s a very odd response. And later in the exchange she’s asked surely 6 of you were in this trail - one person would have been able to provide it - and she says ‘I’m not a legal expert’ - but it’s not about the law it’s about email and plain on the face that 1 out of 6 people in an email trail should be able to find that email most likely in their sent items (unless all six independently deleted it from their inboxes and sent items and deleted items or indeed archives (I have done discovery).
NC It talks about the Ix, and how ED will be the investigator, it appears to be to set and coordinate a group of ppl who shldnt be talking to each other as witnesses. It talks about info not leaving the group and foot in mouth syndrome. it's serious isnt it?
KS I agree we shldnt have written these things in this group. I cant say whether it's been withheld. I dont think u can prove the emails were linked
NC These emails werent produced for the 1st hearings were they?
KS It appears not
NC There were 6 of you in this chain
NC & after DU added, so 6 of you cld have found this info?
KS I'm not a legal expert and cant say. Not all were involved throughout. I dont know who was involved when
What she says to the Judge is it’s a massive coincidence that all six delete / can’t find the most implicating email trail or there was collusion. And the witness I’ve asked about it has just said you can’t prove it. (She may yet prove it though). The inference is on balance it’s likely there was a cover up because the fact of six people carrying out the same action when the talk about how to hide information and keep foots out of mouths - the content is already acknowledging a level of complicity and stepping outwith bounds of propriety in the investigation.
What is then clever is NC asks later - did you tell DU to use the ladies changing room. KS says no, NC says but DU said you did in her evidence.
What NC just proved to the Judge is that under oath one of these people is lying.
So she’s allowing them to show us who they are.
The Judge cannot find contempt but can perhaps refer it to the High Court. The best thing that has happened is 1.4 million have seen some of KSs work in her emails. She is clearly biased, one sided and failed to follow the GMC code on patient reporting.
She should be referred and investigated and a grievance should be raised in NHS Fife for her undermining an investigation and colluding in it. If I was the legal rep there I would recommend that given that they have brought the Trust into disrepute. But you’ve seen the statement their legal signed off last week - so I wouldn’t expect much.
However if Sex Matters have the resources they should have a team raising issues with regulators for all these staff members. Like the RCN - everyone who ignores the rights of others to this extent and starts to lie or hide or collude - should be brought before justice to be dealt with.
We need precedents so that others who protect the rights of one group above all others will think twice.