Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor

[InterrobangsArePureBias]

I wonder how many more of such actions will be launched. To adapt Jimmy Doyle’s phrase, “the spectacle of this nation’s [lanyard classes] enforcing moral auto-lobotomy as a condition of entry to [employment]”.

A prison custody officer who was sacked for saying he would not address male-born transgender inmates as ‘she’ or ‘her’ has launched legal action against one of the UK’s largest security firms.
Army veteran David Toshack, 50, was dismissed by GEOAmey during a training course only days before taking up a role as a prison custody officer (PCO) at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court.
The father of three told a safeguarding workshop that he would not be comfortable using a transgender inmates’ preferred gender pronouns and expressed his belief that a man could not become a woman.
It sparked a horrified reaction from bosses at the firm, which employs thousands of justice workers across the UK, who said his views were against the law and company policy.
…
He said: ‘I’m just a normal, working class person who’s never been in trouble with the law before, not got a criminal record, lived a good life. I’ve been prepared to go and fight and die for my country, and then I have come back here and been told that there’s certain things you can’t think or can’t say.’

https://archive.is/bxjqC

Original story about David Toshack in Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14963309/Prison-custody-officer-sacked-refusing-call-male-born-trans-prisoners-her.html

Agreed GA will likely loose on lack of proper process rather than the "substantiv"e issue

And the evidence points to the GA staff fabricating events to justify having no HR process.

I think the focus on PP where SH claimed DT was aggressive and would not feed or toilet T prisoners and the fact that nobody had found him a nightmare

CH claiming he was refusing to search a self proclaimed "female" when he was by policy only allowed to search males.

And to be fair the internal appeal has to look at the GC beliefs and as you say justify rather than ignore the fact that an employee has a PC.

Sorry maybe it was at the appeal stage, but I still don't see the necessity of it.
Today I'm going to be torn between following this case and the FWS one!

Will there be any more witnesses in this case today?

I think so..

Another2Cats · Yesterday 16:09
JS It was refusal to act within operational - one person doing one thing.
DH No further qs
J - Any result from your discussions.
DH We will hear from witness tomorrow. Should be short.

But a woman from HR was in the room with CH taking notes and backing up his points?

Is this not happening today?

You would need to double check TT on X

I've just looked back at the TT tweets from yesterday and if it's happening it will be at 2.30. The discussion between judge and barristers wasn't easy to follow and it may be tomorrow morning. Not sure if that helps.

Thanks! TT on X doesn’t seem to have anything today, hence my confusion. I must have missed the 2.30pm bit.

Revised timings are right at the end of the TT thread.

Judge decided to not sit today. Counsel will write submissions.

Back on Wednesday at 10, an hour or so for the last witness, break for any changes to subs, exchange subs at 1 and come back c 2.30 for any questions.

I note the judge asked to have links to any cases he might not have seen.

Links! How outrageous, The AI King, Judge Kemp wouldn't do links

@Unijourney that tickled me too, I think they were both thinking of Kemp:
'J And provide authorities. If you have any obscure judgments I might not have seen please give links.
MM I have no first instance cases. I always give citations and a paragraph - identifying particular part within an authority.'

Finally caught up before the end of the thread, thanks to TT and everyone c&ping 👏🏼

Hi all

Final Day of Toshack v GeoAmey is today. It will be on Tribunal Tweets 2 because FWS vs Scottish Ministers (Prison Edition) is on Tribunal Tweets 1.

Scheduled for 10 to 11:30 (final witness, we don't know who that is) and then any necessary oral submissions from 2:30 pm.

I did some of the prison JR yesterday, I have never typed so fast in my life as when trying to keep up with Aidan O'Neill. Like a runaway steam train when he gets going.

Oh, and it's me on Toshack this morning.

Have a great gender critical day everyone!

Thank you @Justabaker

Thanks @Justabaker

(Thanks to all who provide TT on the thread. )
🍻

I haven’t managed to watch the prisons case but caught up with Nick Wallis’s updates.

I hope I’m remembering correctly that Aidan O’Neil represented FWS at the SC. He was so good but he does pack in a lot of information.

What I liked is he appears to say the SG are relying on HR to allow TIM into women’s prisons but there is no legislation or case law that supports their defence. Basically they have no case.

I wonder if there is no case law if this will go to the SC if the SG win.

@Justabaker👏👏👏

Kirschcherries
No government should go to the SC to argue over case law when there is no actual (direct¹) legislation in place.

The governments job is to pass laws. If they cant get the law passed its because society does not want that law to pass and policicians are not willing to risk their seat in the next election.

¹ the case law is the application of law to individual circumstance so the SC could be asked to rule on the "indirect" law.

For those who are still interested in this case:

From TT

The witness is Gavin Redmond (GR), GeoAmey employee, identified on GeoAmey website as 'account manager for Scottish Prison Service Escort Services. We begin.

J - formalities with GR, he swears, explains how process will go
J - when you're ready MM
MM - confirm name and age
GR - confirms
MM - how long employed, title
GR - unclear
MM - what is your role
GR - make sure we respect our contractual obligations and the law

MM - background
GR - I've been in the prison service for more than 20 years, details various roles
MM - what was last job as PCO
GR - various management roles, then moved to headquarters,
MM - this was when escort service was in house, your last role was in relation to the

outsourcing of the transport service
GR - confirms, 3rd generation of service contract
MM - what was that
GR - each contract is about 8 years long, this is the 3rd contract
MM - <unclear>
GR - <describing role further but only one word in 3 comprhensible>

MM - directs to GR bundle, what is page 78
GR - part of contract with Scots gov
MM - dated March 2018, parties are Scottish Ministers and lists parts of contract
GR - confirms
MM - customer is Scots gov
GR - yes
MM - definitions, 'escort monitor' appointed by customer to ensure

compliance with contract, what is that
GR -escort monitor has statutory responsibility to oversee the contract, meet monthly, join management meetings, and any necessary adjustments
MM - on SPS side of fence
GR - yes, SPS employees
MM - are they independent
GR - there are 3 or 4

escort monitors (EM), all employees of SPS, report to head of SPS
MM - back to contract 'service provider needs to provide services to satisfaction of customer'
GR - yes
MM - service provider needs to adopt any new policies, protocols required by customer

GR - yes, we need to follow that
MM - reads out additional obs of GA to SPS, that's a further obligation
GR - yes
MM - takes GR to PER, there's been a fair amount of evidence in tribunal about this form....contract says needs to complete and accurate do you see that
GR - yes

MM - and then form sets out bits of info that is required, do you see that
GR - yes
MM - now reads out part of section entitles care, each prisoner to be dealt with according to unique needs, deal sensitively with protected characteristics do you see that
GR - yes

MM - sex and gender are pcs, now on to Equality and Diversity, says service provider shall provide services sensitive to needs of prisoners and in accordance with EA.
GR - yes
MM - staff need to have adequate training in equality and diversity
GR - yes

MM - in carrying out services, need to respect express and implied provisions of EA. Now onto risk assessment, GA needs to provide SG with necessary information, can you bring this to life for us
GR - takes various forms, the EM make visit the GA sites, they will conduct audits

to ensure we deliver in acc with contract, also thematic audits,
MM - whats that
GR - would consist of any clause in terms of its application, they would do a deep dive review of GA performance
MM - give us an example
GR - say handcuffing processes, how and policies

GR - also may review GA back office procedures, all need to be approved by EM, there are many procedures, there's always things going through the cycle, feedback on those procedures, new procedures etc
MM - process for updating SOPs?
GR - our governance process is for policy

holder to be resp for any review of SOP, then goes to an internal panel of stakeholders, then to safety experts, provide feedback, then comes to me as the contract director and then goes to the customer for final approval.
J - can I be clear about something, you said about

having to be approved - is it just policies or staff as well?
GR - my response was just on policies
J - just policies then that have to be approved by the customer
MM - in relation to your employees, on the contract, does the EM have input to hiring
GR - any member of staff

who might be involved in searches has to be identified and approved and checks done, we do internal checks, make recommendation to customer. We propose that each indiv <sound goes bad again>
MM - who's the decision maker about who can work on the contract
GR - no question it is

customer, Scottish Prisoners
MM - do you have a union
GR - one recognised trade union
J - we heard evidence about needing to let customer know about changes in staffing, is it a weekly communication of ins and outs
GR - correct
J - in writing?
GR - two reasons for it, one is

oversight, that is in writing the secondary reason is for sharing info on number of staff is ongoing contract performance to make sure we have enough staff to deliver the service.
J - thank you, back to trade unions
MM - on union participation, takes to policy, we see date of

22 March, are you familiar with this <missed some> now asking about trans policies GR - yes
MM - do you remember anyone ever flagging this policy that the union was not comfortable with the policy
GR - I don't
MM - did union ever raise any issues with the policy
GR - union have

never approached me.
MM - on to DTs personal circumstance were you involved
GR - I was not involved
MM - what's your perspective on this re CH, let me give you his side of the story, we heard a scenario where DT said m is m, w is w, I won't call them anything else, refused to

PPs, but what he will do is use pref name, willing to search a TM but not call male, and lastly in terms of PER form would not tick female if indiv is male, would not do that. And wouldn't use he/him she/her on form. That's was CH told us, <sound has gone bad again>

MM - if it was put to you would this be a reasonable approach to situation
GR - SOP are there to give me comfort that things are being done consistently and that risks are properly manager, any employee who knowingly and openly is communicating they will not follow SOP brings

an unnecessary risk to themselves and colleagues. I can't see any alternatives here for someone employed to be a PCO.
MM - finished
DH - good morning (MG now speaking with DH, brief pause)
DH - good morning, I have a few qs, I represent DT, picking up on last point, you made

reference to level of risk to colleagues, is risk assessed by GA in undertaking prisoner services
GR - it's integral to everything we do, making that risk assessment, the basic tool is the PER
DT - we often talk about risk assessment, one is dynamic decision, and there are also

written risk assessments undertaken by those looking at overall operations, they might take some steps to ascertain how much risk and level of risk. A similar process is undertaken. How is the PER a tool? Isn't it just a record, not a dynamic risk assessment.
GR - can do both

the info that is provided in the PER informs the officer in advance on a host of matters, which deployment tactics to use, how much risk, etc
DH - you were asked about the involvement with changes in policies and procedures, we have both GA SOPs and SPS SOPS, is that in respect

of GA policies or SPS policies
GR - <answer unclear>
DH - EM might have views of staffing of GA, process of certification for PCOs - when is that done? We know that DT was employed and went on ITC, so when does he get the badge?
GR - they get the badge on final day of ITC

DH - how does the EM satisfy themselves that a person on course is going to get the badge
GR - GA has responsibility to propose that every PCO is a fit and proper person, the completion of all the modules within the training course and the training teams opinion that they meet

the criteria.
DH - the recommendation or proposal you ref'd to for 'the badge' comes from GA, on last day of course.
GR - in fact this starts a few days earlier, 48 hours before end of course, EM is notified, and PCO certification is invoked
DH - the EM confirms badge at end

of course
GR - yes that's right
DH - how much time does EM have with this
GR - usually the course ends on Wednesday, final by Friday
DH - so GA would only recommend those who completed course and were competent
GR - yes
DH - would the EM usually abide by recomm of GA

Thanks for C&P, much appreciated for those of us who are not on X.