My thoughts this morning...
There was supposed to be another witness from the Benidorm chat group to support SP. That witness did not appear. I'm not surprised she backed out given the way LN was exposed. It is not guaranteed, but it seems likely that the private case management discussion was about this witness. Options that may have been considered include:
- using a witness summons to force her attendance
- getting a witness statement to add to the bundle - this would get her evidence in and would carry some weight, but less than if she had been cross examined
- taking her evidence in private
If NC simply decided not to call her, I don't see that there would have been any need for a case management discussion about her. Of course, the case management discussion could have been about something else.
The evidence from Emma Moore was hearsay and weak. However, if it is true that Fife took it on themselves to vet mail addressed to SP, that is a big problem. I don't know if any attempt will be made to get a response from Fife regarding this. If it is not true, I would expect JR to deny it in her submissions. If she does not do so, it does not guarantee that the allegation is true, but it certainly suggests that it might be.
Re SP and the NMC, I am not an expert in the NMC so I would give way to anyone who is. A review of a few cases suggests that the NMC would view a single incident of racist jokes being shared with colleagues in a private chat group, none of whom appear to have taken offence at the time and where this is the only instance in 7 years of chat, as less serious than racially abusing colleagues or patients. The latter would definitely lead to SP being struck off. This should, I think, lead to a lesser sanction such as a caution or temporary suspension should the NMC decide that a penalty is required. If the NMC is captured, it is possible that SP's GC views would lead to them wanting to impose a higher penalty, but I would hope that they would be deterred from doing anything out of line with previous decisions by the knowledge that SP has a backer with deep pockets.
Re LN and the NMC, sharing confidential patient details on a private chat group is clearly unacceptable. However, this is not as serious as sharing them with other patients or on a public forum. If the NMC get involved, this may be sufficient mitigation to lead to a lesser sanction than being struck off. However, I suspect that she will find that many of her colleagues now want to keep their distance from her. She has demonstrated how spiteful she can be and that she cannot be trusted.
Returning to the tribunal, all that is left now is submissions, both verbal and written, then we wait for the tribunal's decision. I am confident that the tribunal will decide that Fife broke the law by allowing Upton to use the female changing room. Whilst I can see that JR has an argument that this is not what the SC decision means, I would be very surprised if the tribunal accepts that argument. I cannot be certain, but I don't think JR has enough evidence to convince the panel that SP was not suffering from menstrual flooding but deliberately went into the changing room to provoke a confrontation with Upton. Once the incident had happened, it is clear that Fife completely failed to follow any appropriate process, rushing to condemn SP and support Upton without even bothering to find out what SP had to say. I therefore think she will win and get significant compensation. If the panel concludes that Fife's scorched earth approach means SP cannot continue to work there, that should significantly increase the compensation awarded.
I am sure there will be an appeal if SP loses. Whether Fife will appeal if SP wins is less certain. However, if Fife lose I suspect that all those members of staff who rushed to support Upton will convince themselves that they were right and the tribunal was wrong.