Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 3

[fanOfBen]

TT summary:

Dr Redvers, a named GP safeguarding lead, has a constructive dismissal case. Clinical concerns were raised about a specific doctor at WellBN, a Brighton GP practice. She claims that as a result of escalating those claims from 2020 onwards, she was constructively dismissed.

Her legal claim is discrimination on the grounds of her employer’s perception she had gender critical beliefs and on the grounds of her protected belief in evidence-based medicine (EBM). The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that EBM is just an opinion.

Earlier coverage of this hearing can be found on TT's Substack at:
t.co/TwXeLCDnpt

TT report what they hear in good faith but do not provide a verbatim transcript of the hearing.

TT's list of abbreviations:

J - Judge Katherine Andrews (sitting alone)
DR/C - Doctor Sarah Redvers, claimant
CM/RB - Chris Milsom, claimant barrister
CE/RB - Charlotte Elves, Claimant Barrister
PD - Peter Daly, solicitor for the C

NHSSICB/R1 - NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board, first respondent
AD/R2 - Adam Doyle, second respondent, CEO of R1 2019-2025
Rs - collectively the respondents
RB/BW - Ben Williams, Respondent's barrister
EBM - Evidence-based medicine
SG - Safeguarding

WB - WellBN, Brighton based GP practice
GC - Gender Critical or sex realist beliefs
GI - Gender Identity belief
WS - Witness Statement
Ix - investigation
Gx - grievance
Cx - complaint

SH/DSH - Dr Sam Hall, GP at WellBN, Trustee - the Clare Project (TCP), Clinical Lead - Trans Health Hub, GIC Partner - Trans Health Improvement Board at R1, trans-identified female
DA - Dusty Amroliwala, ext consultant, investigated complaint filed by DSH against C
LB - Lola Banjoko, Exec Managing Director, chair of Trans Health Improvement Board, advised R1 on trans matters
NC - Nikky Cambridge, former trustee of TCP

AC - Allison Cannon, Chief Nursing Officer, R1, tasked w implementing the recommendations of the 1st grievance outcome
CCD - Dr Claire Cochrane-Dyet, Dep Medical Director for System Improvement & Professional Standards, NHSE, commissioned Warshafsky Report
HD - Dr Hannah Davies, Deputy Chief Medical Office, R1

SD - Samantha Durrant, Lay vice chair until July 2022, 1st grievance manager
NE - Naomi Ellis, dep director of Safeguarding, R1
MF - Dr Mary Flynn, Named GP for Safeguarding, also filed g/x in relation to Amroliwala Report
PF - Pennie Ford, Executive Managing Director, R1, 2nd grievance manager

EG - Dr Elizabeth Gill, Chief Medical Officer, R1
HH - Hannah Hamilton, Chief financial officer, R1, 2nd grievance appeal manager
BJ - Dr Becky Jarvis, clinical lead for mental health, R1
TM - Tom Micklewright, managing partner of Lime Tree Surgery

IM - Ian Mundy, HR Consultant, Your Consultancy, 1st grievance investigator
MP - Mark Power, interim Chief People Officer (until April 2022), R1, managed Amroliwala investigation
RR - Dr Rebecca Richards, GP partner, Lime Tree Surgery, raised concerns to C about SH
AR - Anne Robson, Interim Chief People Officer (April -August 2022), R1

DS - Dr Dinesh Sinha, Chief Medical Officer (June 2022 - April 2024), Chair of Trans Health Improvement Board (THIB)
MS - Mark Smith, Chief People Officer, R1 (Aug 2022 - Jan 2025) Acting CEO (Jan 2025 - June 2025) Deputy CEO & Director of Transition (June 2025 - present)
RW - Dr Robin Warshafsky, GP NHSE, Author of Warshafsky Report (WR)

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

Thread 2:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5588924-redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care-board-mr-adam-doyle-thread-2

Following, now the thread is allowed to stand.

So Sam Hall had 90 minutes of a CEOs diary time to discuss mentorship. AD must see this is his moment to say ‘we were captured’

Dr.Hall? No I've never mentored a Dr Hall.
Oh you mean SAM?

Not quite sure he is being as confessional as all that. He can’t deny it, as it was in the diary. But my goodness, it wouldn’t have been for 90 minutes, and he can’t remember if it even took place. And, it wouldn’t have been about mentorship (even though he can’t remember it), because he couldn’t do that.

At risk of sounding a bit thick, what sort of mentoring is AD thought to have done, or Dr Hall been requesting - weren't they in very different job roles with different qualifications? Is it general management stuff?

It was most likely to get ideological alignment.

Hmm. Very cosy indeed, but we’ll never know how cosy as it seems no notes seem to available for that meeting.

I’m sure that such a lapse of good practice is a rare departure from adherence to rigorous standards, and the open and honest transparency we have become familiar with in this tribunal.

Reading that bit about criminal charges it looks like Dr Redvers might have to bring charges. She might feel she's had more than enough when this is over.

His comment to the effect that now it's come out I have to say something about it was pretty revealing. He tried damage limitation but I cant imagine anyone buying it.

What a shocker! And after nearly a day of a private case management meeting? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

But wow, “oh yes, now I remember, I did meet Dr Hall in 2020 and 2021, but it’s such a common name, I didn’t realise you meant that Dr Hall. Soz.”

I'm confused as to whether this was the diary disclosed to the judge. I recall now that she told counsel she'd searched for various words in the diary and she listed them. She seemed a bit dismissive as though that hadn't thrown up anything of interest. I can't remember what they were but presumably one of the search terms would have been Sam Hall. We don't know what went on in the 'case management' hearing but back in open court it's presented as AD having found the reference himself. Weird.

Oh God no, AD is not admitting to the meeting. He is admitting that it is in the diary. He can’t deny that. However, he was saying ‘if the meeting took place’, because he was terribly busy and can’t remember it at all. Conveniently, there don’t appear to be any notes to hand to prove it happened.

They were discussing the second meeting, called ‘mentorship’, at the end, just before the judge told CM to wrap it up. So, no time for another ‘if it even happened’ protestation.

And the Shaggy defence again. Shaggy’s doing a lot of lifting here.

It was Christmas, and i drove into the bins!

So who was the mentor in this pairing? Was the CEO mentoring the GP, or the GP mentoring the CEO?

It could be Reverse Mentoring. Another bullshit thing they do where I work.

Yes that was what I was thinking, given AD is not a doctor I fail to understand what AD could be mentoring about

on the other hand Sam could well be mentoring AD about you know what

So the judge ordered production of his diary for the period from roughly 1 April, through July 2021, And there was lots of umming, awwing and protesting from Rs counsel. Finally they retrieved it from ADs previous employer and coughed it up. AD had obviously been relying on it not being retrievable. Once it was, he realised that they could go back further in time, got his hands on 2020 and earlier in 2021 and identified some scheduled meetings with SH. He framed this as wanting to check his recollection because it's been such a long time, and it was a very busy and difficult time and thought it was best to show these entries to Rs counsel and he didn't recall if he had the meetings or not, or what they were about except not mentorship.

It was an extraordinary moment.

Mentored, like the way a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay gets ‘mentored’.

Or more likely Sam was being mentored for a leadership role, to drive forward an agenda to set up a rogue Tavistock type gender service, that AD now wants to back away from.

CM We were told no disclosure entries before 2023 and little before 25
AD I wasnt under oath then and no contact with who cld access diary

I'm sure we've had this excuse before. I think for a massive discrepancy between witness statement and subsequent disclosure. Either in Peggie 1 or the Jo Phoenix case?

Surely this can't be a legally sound get out clause?

”i was not under oath then” is a strange thing to say.

I agree. He had that answer already loaded in the chamber.

"I only tell the truth/behave honestly if I'm actually under oath" wouldn't be my go-to.

It is. If you've reached that stage of your defence you might as well come straight out with 'That was a massive porkie.' Exactly the same meaning.

I am thicker. I know what a mentor is as a noun but not how it applies here at all.