Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 2

[fanOfBen]

Minimal thread-starting:
TT:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care

Thread 1:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5586672-wellbn-brighton-gp-practice-do-not-believe-in-evidence-based-medicine-tt-at-employment-tribunal-tomorrow

Any more gossip?😀

PF I can't remember what order drafts came in

Typically they go v1, v2, v3 etc. Or have dates on. So I think she's answered the 'not very bright?' question.

From TT

We will hear the evidence of the final witness, Hannah Hamilton (HH), CFO at the ICB. Ms Hamilton will be introduced by Ben Williams (BW) the barrister for the respondents (Rs) and then cross-examined by Chris Milsom (CM) the barrister for the claimant (C).

Ms Hamilton was the Grievance Appeal manager for C's second grievance (2023-2024).

Ms Hamilton is the final witness. The case continues for another week, with barristers' submissions and then some time set aside for Judge Katherine Andrews (J) to deliberate.

Back in last witness

Password anyone??

Think that's getting changed right now!

Fortunately for me I was only there for less than 2 years and managed to avoid most of the madness!

CM is being an IT prat. The judges advice is priceless.

Just keep turning it round!!

From TT

CM: p3127. Presumably you were aware that at the time of the appeal, C's employment precarious from her PoV - she'd resigned, was waiting on this?
HH: No not aware at the time, found out later.
CM: Were you aware at the time you decided appeal?
HH: I don't think there was anything in docs I had about that.
CM: What info did you have?
HH: Grievance appeal from C, management case, outcome letter. I could have looked at other things if I'd wanted but I didn't.
CM: p3529-3530, this is C's G-appeal. Serious and substantive concerns?
HH: Yes
CM: mentions harassment under EA2010, you see that?
HH: Yes
CM: She says ICB had failed to protect her from harassment, yes?
HH: You can read that into it.
CM: It's the natural reading. Failure to protect her. And she says, deliberate misinterpretation of 'harassment'. You see that?
HH: Yes
CM: para 11 of your WS.
CM: Struggling to understand why you characterise the appeal as "procedural concerns"?
HH: Many of the things raised were around timeliness and the actions during the IX.
CM: Your WS says, mainly procedual concerns, do you stand by that description?
HH: It was the starting point.

From TT

CM: C also raises issue of independence of officers, and conflicts of interest. You see that? p3530
HH: Yes
CM: Independence of mind was central to her concerns?
HH: Yes, raises external possibility
CM: You didn't consider that.
HH: No
CM: You would have needed to demonstrate independence? Willingness to depart from management line if needed?
HH: Yes
CM: p3582 The 'management case' had been seen by you, but not by the C? Until disclosure for these proceedings?
HH: I don't know, don't dispute.
CM: So at the appeal meeting, you have a document that the C has not seen. You only had 3 documents to work on, and one of them C had not seen?
HH: I can't remember which I had when but yes those were the 3

This is just painful.

Oh, that unreliable Nick Wallis, you mean??

From TT

CM: GA mtg was recorded, we have the transcript here. C says, after Ms Adam's intro, that it's hard to take in that long list of points but she does have things to say about all of them, hopes there will be time to cover. You say, no we don't have a huge amount of time, yes?
HH: Yes
CM: You don't say, we will take all the time we need - we can have a later meeting to complete if needed?
HH: No
CM: p3599, the C says - there is a lot to respond to, I know we have only 10 minutes left, you again don't say "we can come back if we need to"
HH: Well the C didn't ask for another meeting, more time
CM: Whose responsibility to manage time? You or C?
HH: Me 😳
CM: p3607 again we see C querying time, again you say nothing
HH: No

[this is really awful. Poor SR]

That's the one.

The famously unreliable and not at all highly regarded, Nick Wallis 😂

HH: Well the C didn't ask for another meeting, more time

Was the claimant pointing out there was a long list of points she wanted to talk about not enough of a fucking clue?

.

This is painful to read but very helpful to the claimant's case.

From TT

CM: C says, she can't remember all the points from the beginning. you don't share the 'management case' which is basically what that had been?
HH: No
CM: You say, there's a lot here and I will want to consider it. The sum total of the notes the C received from this meeting - p3646 - has the whole of the intro, the 'management case', reduced to 1 sentence.
CM: p3648 - confirmation that mtg will be recorded - you were recording it, or the ICB?
HH: I don't know.
CM: Was the recordin shared with C?
HH: I don't know.
CM: C thanks you for the mtg, offers to write you any further evidence you might need, you don't that that up?
HH: No
CM: I took you to the point about misinterpretation of harassment, in the G. As officer you shd consider?
HH: Yes
CM: p3688 your letter - says actions didn't amount to bullying / harassment.
CM: You don't even uphold the original finding of harassment.
HH: I don't reach a conclusion, bcs, appeal was about process etc. Not my role to re-investigate.

This witness is coming across as completely biased against SR imho.

It sounds like she actually disliked her.

I am assuming our usual thread derailer ( laxy ) is now hotfooting over to complain about the panel headed by the (unreliable blogger) Nick Wallis and the clearly unreliable Alice Sullivan (Queen of Sex based Stats and Data). How those 2 wastrels were chosen to do this when our old friend knows so much more is unbelievable 🤣

CM finished

Wow. That was awful.

Judge no qs
None from other bloke

Witness leaves

Horrible people aren't they.