NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57

[nauticant]

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

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 last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It resumed on 16 July and the last day of evidence was 29 July 2025. It resumed again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give more evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to:
[email protected]

The hearing was live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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.ph/WSSjg.

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

Links to previous threads #1 to #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 51: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 3 September to 1 October 2025
Thread 54: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54 28 September 2025 to 21 November 2025
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025

But I'm wondering about the AI idea.

We know that Kemp didn't use a computer for his writing but wrote everything down on paper at the tribunal. I haven't read the judgment yet but didn't Kemp write in it something about not being empowered or minded to click on hyperlinks to access supporting evidence?

To my mind, this doesn't show a man who is skilled with computers and has a good grasp of IT. Would he even be capable of using AI?

It's 'bangin' and hitting the headlines all over the shop.

It'll save Naomi a job - the appeal is being crowd sourced and then verified by the Time's lawyer.

In the Peggie judgment

1048. One of the documents in the Supplementary Bundle was three pages from a report by an organisation called Fair Play For Women dated 12 December 2020. It was not complete, in that it referred to an Appendix which was not included. It referred to statistics from 2018 issued by the Ministry of Justice and stated that they showed that “half of the people in prison who declare themselves transgender have been sentenced with one or more sexual offence.” It then states that there is new data confirming that the vast majority were born male. What that data is however is not specified. The 2018 statistics referred to and the new data which may be 2019 statistics were not, so far as we could ascertain, within the Supplementary Bundle. They may have been obtained from what appears to be hyperlinks in the report but it is not appropriate for us to seek out evidence not presented by the parties.

They may have been obtained from what appears to be hyperlinks in the report but it is not appropriate for us to seek out evidence not presented by the parties.

I think its called selective incompetence - he won't click on a link for evidence as it won't help him stitch up Sandie.

Nor does the case law - so he just makes that up himself.

The comment about not clicking on hyperlinks relates to a report from Fair Play for Women that was in the supplementary bundle. The judge is quite right that it was not appropriate for him or the other tribunal members to click on those links. If NC wanted the linked documents to be in evidence, they should have been in the supplementary bundle.

I have sympathy on the hyperlinks point. It’s not that he can’t use them, it’s about what has been included as evidence. Parties are expected to present everything they seek to rely on not expect the judge to go mining through docs for links.

Arguably the judge would have been at fault if he had clicked on them because he was effectively gathering his own factual evidence rather than having the parties take him to it.

I really don’t understand this.
Does he not understand that he’s been presented with the evidence via hyper link?

That’s like saying I’m not going to seek out evidence by turning to page 6, or noting the asterisk means read a footnote.

This is so strange

No he is right on this. Possibly the only thing I agree with him on.

Like I said, I don’t get this.

Is it because they are still working off paper?
Most of the work I do is digital, and has been for some time, so hyperlinks are quite normal (just with IT advice to hover over it to make sure the address is what it should be)

Its rules of procedure I imagine

@prh47bridge said

The comment about not clicking on hyperlinks relates to a report from Fair Play for Women that was in the supplementary bundle. The judge is quite right that it was not appropriate for him or the other tribunal members to click on those links. If NC wanted the linked documents to be in evidence, they should have been in the supplementary bundle.

I think it's fair enough, because how far down should he go? These links weren't put there by SP's team from the sound of it, they just occurred in a document they provided that had been written for something else. So if he followed those links, and the documents they led to also contained links, should he follow those too? There's a reason for consulting the bundle instead of the whole internet.

I sit on regulatory hearings and I would not click on a hyperlink in a document in an electronic bundle. If the parties wanted me to consider the material contained in that link they need to present that material directly as part of their evidence.

Yes exactly.

Women’s silence isn’t consent. It’s fear of consequences and escalation.

Ah, okay, got you.
I was envisaging like a digital bundle type thing.

I guess it makes sense actually, thinking about it more.

Imagine if it is a link to a report, and you click the link and just get a 404 error, or it’s been updated or whatever.

In the regulatory hearings I do the electronic bundles are pdf I assume because they have to be immutable ie they have to be in a format that can’t be subsequently changed or corrupted.

Well, you can edit pdf files of course and have links in them! Pdf is much better for this purpose than Word, though, because it gives you e.g. consistent pagination.

Unless they are a trans link. Then they can be whatever they want, can't be pinned down and they will be universally beloved and credible to judges.

Lovely little trans links. Not immutable at all.

If he was given a printed bundle rather than a digital one, he would have had to type in the links?

He’ll have the protected characteristic of sex, being a man, as well. Like SP should have the protected characteristic of sex, being a woman. And if you have a women’s changing room, you only should have those of the female sex in there.

All the documentary evidence must be in the bundle or supplementary bundles. The bundle may be electronic, so it is not a question of working off paper. However, the judge must only consider the evidence that is actually in the bundle. Hyperlinking a document does not include it in the bundle, so the judge must not follow the hyperlink.

Might it be the hyperlinks in section 2 of this document?
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

@usernameinserthere a thank you from me too, brilliant article.

Did he have evidence in the bundle that showed men (who say they are women) are no more a threat than women to other women? Otherwise he should equally have said there is no evidence or reason to suppose that men (who say they are women) are not the same threat as other men. Or even a higher threat.

No, the judge is referring to a report by Fair Play for Women. From the description, I think this is the report in question:

Transgender women criminality shows male pattern | Fair Play For Women

And if the man has seen you changing at work, and embarrassed by that, you don’t know what chit-chat (i.e. gossip) and thoughts he’s going to be taking away to share with his mates or himself later.

We all know it happens. Male voyeurism is a huge issue. Male gossip at work and OOH with colleagues (male and female) is also a big problem in, for example, universities and hospitals in my experience.