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

I think probably leadership mentoring as SH was not just working as a GP but running a service.

It's been hinted at that the trust wanted WellBN to become an alternative to the Tavistock, so more complicated than a regular GP service.

Yes, I think this too. I just had a quick google to see what sort of mentoring arrangements took place among NHS management, and this seemed like exactly the sort of thing that Dr Hall might have pushed for as part of their "evangelising" approach .
Just an example of it here, to indicate what it is all about: www.northantstraininghub.nhs.uk/supporting-you/development-edi/reverse-mentoring-programme

This jumped out at me as well. Makes you think what else has been left out that wasn’t brought up under questioning.

Would have been very helpful to have had SH giving evidence. I understand why it's not possible but it is such a hole in trying to establish what went on and I feel SH would not have been so reticent to talk about the extent to which they had the CEO's ear and how much latitude was allowed.

I fell behind, so i missed that bit, @Scout2016. Why isn’t it possible for SH to give evidence?

It was up to NHS Sussex to decide which defence witnesses to put up and even if they'd wanted SH to give evidence, and I suspect they wouldn't have, SH could, and probably would, have refused.

The first thing I notice from the Reverse Mentoring programme listed:

The Reverse Mentoring Programme will cover 3 protected characteristics, ie Race, Disability and LGBTQ+

Correct me if I am wrong, but Race and Disability are covered by the Equality act, sexual orientation is, gender reassignment is, but BQ+? This just sounds like the usual hogwash and if they can't get the protected characteristics right, what use is the programme except as a propaganda tool? And I think we know where the emphasis will lie.

Admittedly this is from 2023 and we have had the Supreme Court judgement and a number of ETs since then, so I suspect they would be more careful about what they wrote now.

I also think we need a proper definition of gender reassignment or what it's meant to cover.

As ever @Peregrina the TQIA+ only ever tags along with well established successes and then proceeds to muddy the waters aided and abetted by the ‘be kind’ brigade. Sam Hall and the film with her daughter exposes the pernicious nature of trans. It is not all rainbows and glitter. It destroys families and is now so enmeshed in society I hate to think what is next. And what the + stands for.

Counsel for the claimant started to explore the + grouping and got such a smack down from the judge about wanting to go there that she wisely moved on.

I’ve had a mentor in a public sector role and they basically took an interest in my work, asked me about it, asked if there was anything in particular they could support me with etc. They were a senior manager in a different department. DP mentors a young woman colleague in his professional role and from what I know it’s a similar dynamic.

So it was possible, she was just too chicken to do it.
She can only dish it out, it seems.

Yes "possible" probably wasn't the right word.
I think what I meant was that SH wasn't named as a respondent in the way Dr Upton was so couldn't be compelled to attend and give evidence. Maybe because SH wasn't as directly connected and involved with claimant she couldn't be added in the same way?

I found this on Doyle and his start with Kent and Medway. I also found that he is on £130K a year, but also something else, that is not a full years pay it is prorated. This is probably what he will be paid. For an area covering over two million people like Kent and Medway, the standard full-year baseline pay range can scale up to an operational maximum of £283,500, with exceptional approvals extending up to £314,397.

https://www.kentandmedway.icb.nhs.uk/news/new-chief-executive-starts-at-nhs-kent-and-medway-2928/

I'm sure Kent and Medway are finding he's worth every penny.

Presumably they already have more than enough doctors and nurses.

Just caught up with this.

The lying toad. I wonder what the consequences will be for him, if any

I think that there must have been similar smoking guns in other tribunals - Sandie Peggie's and the Belfast Film Festival spring to mind. It's just that those organisations bent over backwards to avoid some disclosures, and the judges weren't as focused as this one.

Also, for the judge to get her efficient claws on this evidence, two things have happened:

1. Whoever was in charge of finding the calendar knew how to do their job. I'm looking at you, 6th-best-option Fife IT team
2. Whoever was in charge of releasing the calendar to the judge decided that it was okay to drop Doyle. That he, and the ideology, aren't worth lying about in a tribunal

Both of those are new

They took three years to diagnose me with a serious heart problem, did over 30 ECG's which were all abnormal, the consultant simply told me to stop driving. Then in July 2025, they put an internal loop recorder in my chest and found out that my heart was stopping for 8 to 25 seconds every time I had one of my "episodes". It took them a further three months to fit me with a pacemaker. It appears that I have a cardiac condition called "left branch bundle block".

It's another good demonstration that NHS administrators like Doyle do need professional regulation. He started as a physiotherapist & I just checked he is still on the register. I think a complaint to his professional body will be in order once the ET reports on his lying.

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register/professional-registration-detail/?query=PH62987&profession=PH&backtosearchurl=www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register/register-results/&backtosearchquery=doyle

I think there'd been disclosure shenanigans when AD was handling things but what changed was that the judge ordered full disclosure of the diary entries. After that point, anyone involved, unless they were an idiot, would understand that suppressing evidence to thwart the order of a judge would be moving over into criminal territory. For anyone with common sense, that would be well beyond any thoughts of protecting AD or the NHS.

So do we know when the submissions will be made?

NHS Fife failed to fully disclose several times - they had to be asked time and again. I don't think there was any consequence for that.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2112910104974574061

It's always the bundles.

The impression the reporting has given is that this judge was determined to see the diary - to the extent that I think she'd have called the IT people to court to explain themselves if it didnt appear. I wonder if having located it they didnt bother to edit the timings and just sent everything they had. Then Doyle finds out and decides to do his pathetic attempt at damage limitation.

I think that once it was an order from the judge, legal people got involved and AD was removed completely from the process. The legal people most likely took the view that everything within the scope of the order be handed over and there be absolutely no selection of data. At this point, something caused AD to suddenly realise that his disclosures and evidence had been deficient/incorrect, and he moved in haste to assist the court to make sure they weren't under any misapprehensions about his evidence.

Which is outrageous, really. You can basically misbehave and it’s just swept under the carpet.

I remember reading a judgment on Bailii, where nobody was behaving properly, and the Judge said ‘Orders aren’t preferences, requests, or mere indications; they are orders.