Boss of trans doctor in case of nurse suspended for challenging medic's use of female changing room denies she 'deliberately' concealed a 'seriously embarrassing' email from tribunal

Daily Mail​

4 days ago

Lawyers for a nurse suspended after complaining about sharing a changing room with a trans medic have accused a group of senior doctors of hiding an email in a bid to conceal alleged wrongdoing.
Sandie Peggie, 51, is suing NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton after she was suspended for confronting the trans doctor when she was made to change next to her in a female-only changing room.
Yesterday lawyers for Ms Peggie claimed that a consultant in emergency medicine at the hospital had failed to hand over a 'seriously embarrassing' email to the tribunal.
Naomi Cunningham KC claimed Dr Kate Searle failed to hand over the email which showed an alleged attempt to 'set up and coordinate a group' of witnesses in the investigation into complaints made against Ms Peggie.
The accusation came as Dr Searle - the senior medic who supervised Dr Beth Upton and helped complete a report following the incident between the trans doctor and Ms Peggie - gave evidence to the tribunal in Dundee.
On Tuesday Dr Searle denied 'deliberately concealing' an email sent between six potential witnesses discussing an investigation into Ms Peggie.
During cross-examination, Dr Searle was asked about a number of emails, including one to six respondents referring to a 'small need to know group' to help avoid 'foot in mouth syndrome'.
Ms Cunningham KC said there was 'something a bit odd going on here' as there were separate chains with the same subject line, which looked as if they were connected but she said there were earlier messages in the chain which appeared to have been deleted.
Ms Cunningham KC said an email looked as if it had not been submitted to the tribunal when it should have been, and there was a further email that should have appeared at the bottom of a chain that was 'for some reason, chopped off'.
'But on the face of this email, it is quite understandable, isn't it, why those involved in that small need to know group might have preferred not to have it looked at in the course of this tribunal,' the lawyer said.
She added that the email was 'seriously embarrassing' to NHS Fife and Dr Upton.
She said: 'It talks about a live investigation. It says in terms that Esther [Davidson, Ms Peggie's supervisor], who a few days earlier and then again until the end of February is going to be the investigator, it says in terms Esther cannot do it, as she has been involved in the discussions with Sandie previously.
'It appears to be an intention to set up and coordinate a group of people who should not be talking about this investigation to each other because they are witnesses.
'It says in terms this information must not be shared with anyone outside this group, and it talks about the risk of foot in mouth syndrome. It is in itself, quite a serious case of foot in mouth syndrome, isn't it?'
Dr Searle said she could 'appreciate that in hindsight, we should not have written these things in a group email to witnesses'.
'And having done that, everybody involved in that chain had quite good reason to prefer that it shouldn't see the light of day,' argued Ms Cunningham.
Dr Searle responded: 'I cannot comment whether this email was withheld. I don't think you can prove that these two emails are linked.
'And when we were all asked by the IT department to do a thorough search of our emails, we did so, and this email was produced.'
Ms Cunningham said: 'But you were asked to do some degree of search of emails on the previous trawls, and this email wasn't produced. Was it? You didn't produce it in time for the first part of this hearing, in response to the January 3 order.'
Ms Cunningham said there were six people copied on the email. She asked if all those copied in had agreed between them that none of them would produce it.
'Absolutely not,' Dr Searle replied.
Ms Cunningham said: 'I would suggest to you that you deliberately defied an order of the tribunal to conceal your own wrongdoing and that of your colleagues.'
'I absolutely do not agree with that,' Dr Searle said.
'If you had done that, it would be dishonest. Wouldn't it?' Ms Cunningham asked.
'It would be dishonest to do that, and I am a doctor who acts as honestly as I can at all times.'
She agreed that it would be an issue for the regulator if she, as a doctor, had not acted with honesty and integrity.
Hearings, in Dundee, continue.