First day of the employment tribunal brought by nurse Sandie Peggie against her union, the Royal College of Nursing
250 tweets
Good morning and welcome to Day 1 of Sandie Peggie v the Royal College of Nursing at Dundee Employment Tribunal. Proceedings are due to start at 10am. We are not yet in court. Here is Sandie arriving with husband Darren and mum Sheila behind her. Live tweets will follow…
Just in shot in the tweet above is Naomi Cunningham (NC) who will be representing Sandie Peggie (SP) in court. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) will be represented by David Hay KC (DH). Employment Judge Melanie Sangster (J) is presiding.
I am hoping to put an application before the court to receive documents referred to during open court from the parties electronically. This can only happen with the agreement of all parties and the tribunal. I have had no indication if my application will be considered…
… not whether I will be asked to make my case in court. The argument I will make (if asked) is that having an exact understanding of the wording of a document is essential to aid public understanding of proceedings and therefore open justice. At the moment, the trial bundle…
… is apparently scheduled to be made available for "inspection" by the public in a separate room. This does not exactly aid real time reporting of proceedings. I hope the parties and the judge look favourably on my application as this will make a difference to my capacity to…
report this case. Please also be aware EVERYTHING I tweet is a summary of characterisation of what is happening in court. NOTHING is a direct quote, unless it is in "direct quotes".
summary OR characterisation, sorry.
Should you know someone who doesn't like or have X and would like to follow along on my own Gender Blog – you can do that here:
genderblog.net/live-tweets/
And if you would like to support my endeavours AND get a subscriber-only newsletter at the end of each day's proceedings, please consider making a donation to support my work. More info here:
genderblog.net/donate/
I am committed to staying here for the duration of the trial, which is scheduled to last 7 working days – finishing on Thursday next week. In that time we are expecting to hear from SP first. Other witnesses include Darlington Nurse Bethany Hutchison, Surrey Nurse Jennifer Melle
… Lisa MacKenzie from the policy group Murray Blackburn MacKenzie who used to work for them RCN, Stuart Fraser, who was SP's rep and Norman Provan who is Stuart's boss. No idea of the schedule yet.
Proceedings have yet to start, but we've got into the courtroom. I have also received an email from the judge…
Not directly obviously! The judge has made a decision on my application… the outcome is… poor.
"EJ Sangster [that's the judge] has asked the parties whether they consent to copies of documents being provided to you electronically, in accordance with your request. One of the parties…
… has indicated that they do not consent to this. As paragraph 57 of the Presidential Guidance requires the consent of all parties and the Tribunal, and this has not been given, the position will remain as set out in the…
… Tribunal’s email sent yesterday, namely the Tribunal will not send electronic copies of documents to non-parties for inspection, but relevant documents will be…
… available for inspection at the Dundee Employment Tribunal, as per the Presidential Guidance."
The refusal, I am told, came from the RCN. I will still seek to be heard in court as I would like to hear the RCN's reasons for their refusal and whether the court considers them
… reasonable, but I suspect that is a test that does not need to be met.
J is here. I have asked her if she will ask the RCN to give its reasons for the refusal. She says it wouldn't serve a purpose and my request is refused. There is now some admin ongoing.
Sandie Peggie (SP) has been called to give evidence. Chooses to do so under oath.
Naomi Cunningham starts with the examination (e). The cross-examination (xe) by David Hay KC will follow but this I am told could run into the second day.
NC full name
SP Sandie Walker Peggie
NC member of RCN
SP 30 years
J please keep your voice up
NC in relation to the RCN it's right you've mostly dealt with Stuart Fraser, Norman Provan and Gillian Tate, their senior legal officer.
SP yes
NC in around Oct 2023 NHS Fife allowed Dr Upton to use the ladies changing room – how did this happen
SP DU started as a junior doctor
in the department and we were told he could use the changing room – there was a lot of tit tat "there was a few people who was uncomfortable with him using the area"
NC was there any disco about this before DU started in the dept
SP "there wasn't any"
NC you encountered DU x3 in the changing rooms in A&E and you complained after the first time and nothing was done – you say a lot of people were uncomf – how do you know
SP general chit chat in the dept
NC why did those people not support you in the last tribunal
SP I think it was fear
NC why
SP they'd seen the way I was treated by my employer
NC on third encounter with DU on xmas eve 2023 you insisted he should not be there as he was male and he refused to leave and suggested youtake that up with managers. Fair summary?
SP yes
NC you were due to work next on 30 Dec, but before that you were put on special leave after DU complained about you?
SP yes
NC when did you first contact the RCN
SP sent an email before 30 Dec and was told someone would get in touch
[goes to p319 in the main bundle which we can only see if we leave court and look up the right page and copy out its contents grouch grouch]
NC that's an RCN document headed Case Summary – it says case received 24 Dec 2023 – why that date – how could it have got that date
SP no idea –
NC so when do you think the RCN first became aware of this case
SP before 30 Dec
NC you were called by Stuart Fraser (SF) on 4 or 5 of Jan. What happened
SP pleasant call I told him what had happened, "he told me more or less that I was being disciplined because I had harassed Beth in the changing area" that the disc process takes 4 to 6 weeks and "I should more or less treat it as an extended holiday"
NC did you ask him any specific qs?
SP "not really. I just wanted his advice"
[go to p20 in the bundle]
NC short note presumably made by SF about that conversation. Is that a fair outline of what was said?
SP yes
NC turn over the page to p321 – that's the email the RCN say they sent to you attaching the letter from SF of the same date on p322. Go back to p321 and look at the To box. It's from Donna McCoom but to 3038606. Would you expect to receive an email sent that way?
SP no
NC you had a meeting after your convo with SF
SP I contacted my husband cousin who is a lawyer and he said it wasn't his area, but he'd give me the name of someone who "after speaking with SF, I got the feeling he wasn't taking it as seriously as I was". My mum told me she'd
heard someone else who had trouble with NHS Fife and he went to get advice from Neale Hanvey who was their MP and that I should.
NC why go to an MP
SP I didn't think SF was taking it seriously. I think he thought I had been disc because [indistinct]
NC what was you rmeeting with NH like
SP I took him my suspension letter and let him read it and he "appeared quite angry" – he put me in touch with sex matters and said he thought "that there should be some kind of legal input"
NC what happened next?
SP I called Maya Forstater at Sex Matters (SM) and her first reaction was that I had a legal case against my employer
NC turn to p334 of the bundle [I am recording these page nos so I can inspect them later] that's a file note of Margaret Gribbon's convo…
… with Norman Provan in which MG tells NP that the Union had an "industrial strategic role" for the RCN to play in this [MG is SP's solicitor] – "did the union do anything after that convo with MG to address the fact a man was being allowed to use the women's changing room?"
SP no
NC did they do anything to see how your colleagues felt about that decision
SP no
NC in March 2024 SF attended a meeting with you and RCN. We introduced ourselves. I met Charlotte Myles from NHS Fife that suspension was being lifted and would I like to work in another
area of the hospital. I refused [sorry this is SP talking now] – I loved my job in A&E and I hadn't done anything wrong.
NC what did SF do
SP took notes. After the meeting he asked me if it would be possible for me to move to another job so I felt he was pushing me in that
direction.
NC how did that make you feel?
SP "not supported" felt like "he was taking the doctor's side rather than mine"
NC go to page x64 of the bundle. That's an email from MG to Adam Watson for the Board on 1 May 2024 and discloses the sexual assault you suffered at the hands
of your GP when you were 17 to the Board. SF is copied in. Was there any follow up from him on seeing this email?
SP no
NC the board was conducting written statements for the Board [Fife Health Board aka NHS Fife]
NC pls turn to p370 of the bundle. That's an email 26 Au 2024 from MG. MG says SP should not be pressed by AG on disclosing ID of person who gave info in x pars – what was that info that MG was asking SF to investigate?
SP she was asking him to find out if there were any other female staff who felt uncomfortable with BU in the CR.
NC pls read the last sentence of the par in that letter.
[intervention as people watching remotely cannot hear what's being said. SP is v softly spoken]
NC what was it in DU's work history that MG wanted the board to investigate
SP I'd heard in his previous work he'd made a complaint about an elderly patient who had misgendered him. Also that when he asked where the CR room was staff felt unsure as to which CR to direct him
to and that made them feel uncomfortable.
NC did SF do anything to follow this up
SP no
NC pls turn to p405 of the bundle. That's an email from SF to you setting up a call on 10 Jan – remember that call?
SP yes
NC why remember?
SP "I was at my mother and father's house at the time. My father was dying and it was the day before he passed away." I don't remember much about the conversation.
NC pls turn to p408 of the bundle. That' an email from SF to you dated 20 Jan 2025 forwarding an email from Norman Provan (NP). When did you read that?
SP wasn't till August – discovered it in my junk box
NC which august
SP august 2025
NC "had the RCN contacted you to ask you for any info before 20 Jan and if so what?"
SP "no they never contacted me"
NC it's uncontentious that your first claim against NHS Fife was listed for ten days but in the end went part heard and had to be listed for further days in July and September. Pls go to 412 – letter from you to NP – why send that letter?
SP I had been made aware that my solicitor had said I might be able to sue the solicitor for further harassment and asked me to ask the RCN if they would help me in a secondary case. [SP is super quiet]
NC skipping over a great deal because most of what happened next is recorded in docs undisputed by the parties. You're currently being investigated by the NMC for fitness to practice – who is your rep?
SP not the RCN – it's MG
NC why not the RCN
SP they never contacted me about it, so…
[NC asks for an early mid morning break to take instruction]
J [to SP] we're going to take a break – pls don't discuss the evidence you've been given or are likely to give. I'm just going to let the clerk know…
J okay we'll take a break and come back in ten minutes.
[I've just been off in search of the bundle. It is being kept under lock and key and I have to be supervised whilst I "inspect" it. I've been told I am only allowed to look at documents already referenced in open court which I think is wrong…
… as it goes against my (admittedly limited) understanding of Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 a Supreme Court ruling which I think basically says journalists can access the whole bundle]
[court is back sitting]
NC this is going to be a lot shorter thanks to DH's approach – you've been off work since July 2024. why?
SP originally my father's death and then stress from work
NC did you want to sort anything in particular out before you returned to work
SP yes I wanted guarantees there would be no men in the female changing rooms at work
NC what is the upshot
SP no help from RCN
NC in broad terms how would you describe your help from the union
SP "there doesn't seem to have been any push from the RCN to get FHB to do anything about the changing room situation"
NC thank you no further qs
J yes mr hay
DH thank you judge. SP good morning. I rep the RCn in your claim against them – got some qs. I appreciate you've been involved in an employment tribunal before – I am putting some qs to you about some things
which RCN colleagues might have a diff perspective on so all I'm doing is trying to get your perspective on the issue – do you understand that
SP yes
DH you encountered DU on 3 occasions
SP yes
DH and he'd been given that permish in Aug 2023
DH from your claim form – your first encounter in the CR was in mid Nov 2023?
SP "it was august and october"
DH right – could we turn to p53 [of the bundle]. This doc runs on over a number of pages and it is what we call the "paper apart" to your claim form to the tribunal – this
is the amended paper and it goes to p59. Now I'm presuming you've seen this before?
SP yes
DH it sets out in a nutshell the case you're bringing against the RCN adn if we go back to the start of it at p53 par 5 Factual Background – it's set out over a number of pars the
narration of events. This was prepped by your counsel, but this info came from you?
SP yes
DH so we see in par 7 of this… [he confers with NC] no – I'll move on… why I was asking about this is that matters come to a head in Dec 2023 – the encounter with DU which leads to
special leave and then suspension
SP that's correct
DH I'm interested in something you said in a media conference some time after the event – turn to p879 please – and this is a BBC news article…
DH I think we see this is a BBC News article 12 Dec 2025 and we see a photo of you speaking at a media conference in Dundee and this was shortly after the NHS Fife judgment – you gave a press conference in the aftermath of that and you offered your comments on "the journey…
… that you've been on, that would be fair to say"
SP yes
DH and if we go over the page to the par which begins "speaking for the first time…" and in the next par and the one after it we have quotes and it looks like quotes from you – do you recollect saying the quotes
attributed to you
""I am not a campaigner and had never heard of the phrase 'gender critical' when I first raised complaints over two years ago about my employer's decision to allow men into female only changing rooms."
is that true?
[www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pnzwl2r4o]
SP yes
DH SF doesn't remember you using the phrase gender critical at first
SP yes
DH because you perhaps didn't
SP yes
DH when did it start – when you met your MP Neale Hanvey
SP wasn't mentioned with Neale Hanvey
DH looks like you spoke with NH towards the end of Jan 2024 – does that sound about right in your recollection?
SP yes
DH and I think from your evidence you get in contact with Sex Matters or they contact you after you speak with NH
SP yes
DH was it Maya Forstater (MF)
SP yes
DH was it then you heard the phrase gender critical (GC) or around then
SP around then
DH was it quite soon after speaking to NH you spoke to MF
SP yes
DH can we turn to p328 pls? This is a v short email you may not have seen. It appears to be the first communication – an email to Ms Galbraith-Martin of the RCN sent on 2 Feb 2024 and the subject heading is Nurse v Fife NHS which we can deduce with some confidence is you
DH so it looks like MG is acting for you no later than 2 Feb 2024.
SP possibly
DH how much time passed between you speaking to NH before you were speaking to MG
SP I know MF contacted MG not long after I spoke to her
DH and you mentioned the first time you heard GC reffed was
was in a convo with MF
SP yes
DH was that concept discussed at any length
SP I was made aware after what happened in the changing that bio men should not be in female spaces and that's what being a sex realist meant
DH let's start at the email chain we begin at p331. emails between MG and RCN people inc NP who is a witness in this case. Let's look at p332. At the foot of the page there's an email from MG to NP on 5 Feb – MG sets out a bit of the detail of your situation.
DH I have a couple of qs about this email. It's sent on 5 Feb – you are mentioned by first name in it. Would you have had occasion to have sat down with MG and explained some of the detail of your case
SP yes
DH so you had spoken with MG by the time of this email of 5 Feb 2024
[SP does not respond]
DH so counting up from the bottom of the page – six lines – and a par which says "I have been instructed to liaise with the employer" and in this sentence MG has instructions to liaise with NHS Fife by 5 Feb
SP yes
DH and by 5 Feb consideration is being given to raising legal proceedings
SP yes
DH so prospect of potential legal proceedings by 5 Feb
SP yes
DH case is being funded by SM her case is of "significant strategic importance" – my reading of this sentence is that the strategy…
… is SM's strategy – rather than one you had come to MG with?
SP yes
DH did you know at that stage what the strategy was?
SP after speaking to MF she said I also had a legal case for my beliefs and I believe she would have passed this on to MG
DH now MG was obvs acting on your behalf from Feb 2024 onwards. I appreciate you didn't approve everything she sent out…?
SP no she asks me to approve everything
DH thanks that's useful – I thought it might be some things were approved and some not so you were "more involved than that?"
SP yes
DH there was quite a bit of correspondence sent to NHS Fife before a claim was raised – let's look at p341/p342 [of the bundle] – quite a substantial piece from MG which gives "intimation" of a claim before a claim is lodged. Was this shared with you?
SP yes
DH and there were occasions where MG sent letters to NP and David Miller (DM) of NHS Fife
SP yes
DH and I presume the purpose of you being shown corr by MG is to check you are happy with the terms before it goes out
SP yes
DH winding back if I may to the disco you had with SF on 5 or 8 Jan 2024…
DH this was a phone call from SF to you after you called the RCN on around 30 Dec 2023.
SP yes
DH you were taken to some notes at p320 of the bundle. SF will tell us theses were notes of the convo he had with you. SF's recollection was that he was speaking to you for about
…40 mins?
SP "it doesn't feel as long as 40 minutes"
DH in your claim you say first contact with RCN was 4th or 1st or Jan now it's the 30th – was that a mistake
SP it was a mistake
DH you say SF's notes don't tell the fullness of what you spoke about. What's missing
SP "what's missing is i had asked SF if he had ever dealt with any cases like this before"
DH do you remember what the answer was?
SP "he was quite non-committal – I don't think he would have told me about any cases he had been doing. I was just after a yes or no answer"
DH there was also a disco between you and SF about some of the words you used and DU used in your confrontation before xmas – along the lines of
"this is the same as when they put a man in a female prison" and you mentioned you'd said something similar
DH was that a ref to a rather notorious prisoner called Isla Bryson?
SP yes
DH and it was mentioned that this might discriminatory be why you have been suspended.
SP yes
DH I think SF will say he wasn't being judgmental when he said that
SP not judgmental. "I felt unsupported, mainly because I felt I had been discriminated against"
DH that's a feeling your articulating now – SF will likely say you didn't express that phrase in your call with him then – would you accept that?
SP yes
DH second half of the note re potential outcomes etc – he will tell us he attempted to summarise the process and what will happen after that – do you recall him doing that?
SP yes
DH I suspect SF will tell us it is almost standard practice to explain to you that there is an investigatory stage
SP can't remember him telling me I had a right of reply – just that it would take four to six weeks.
DH I expect SF will be his purpose in using words re the time of the stage would be to tell you it could be a relatively lengthy process
SP I wouldn't know how long a process would have taken – I've never been in that position before.
DH SF will explain suspension, purpose of and how it's not a sanction necessarily – do remember that?
SP can only remember him telling me it would take about 4 – 6 weeks.
DH SF recollects telling yo once he knew more he would be in a better position to advise and how to take it forwards
SP [no]
DH is it possible he could have said that
SP it's possible
DH did he say anything about a confidential point of contact
SP not from the RCN
DH but from the employer
SP yes
DH and he said he would stay in touch at least once a month
SP don't recollect that, but he did give me a call the next month
DH you did not say anything to SF about seeking legal assistance when you spoke on 5 – 8 Jan – would you accept that?
SP yes
DH you were taken to p321 in the bundle and I understand your position to be is that you have no recollection of receiving this email [which says a case…
… is being opened]
SP yes that's correct.
DH let's look at p322 – the heading of this letter which we see in bold face "Dear Sandie…" – the name that is in the "To" box of that is that number which I anticipate being your RCN number
SP no
DH you looked in your junk mail in Aug 2025 – have you taken any steps to see if this email found its way int your junk mail?
SP I've got no idea
DH thinking about it at this time… do I take it you didn't take any steps yourself to look at the legal assistance the RCN offer on the RCN website for instance.
SP if SF had mentioned it I would have explored it.
DH on p330 you tell SF you have received a letter about the suspension and that you have been put in contact with your MP and other support services.
SP yes
DH was this an oppo also to raise any concerns with SF about his service provision to you?
SP I think the fact that he hadn't mentioned legal advice when I spoke to him and everybody else had mentioned it I think I'd lost faith
DH you don't say anything about losing faith when you make this response
SP I accept that
DH you don't say – well wait a minute – lots of other people are telling me I have a legal claim why didn't you do that – there's no mention of that at all
SP no
DH info about making a legal claim was sought in late Feb 2024 and MG's email on 5 Feb raises the prospect and then again on 13 Feb. On 13 Feb it looks like a certainty – MG saying a "legal claim will be intimated" to NHS Fife and that did happen. There's no suggestion in MG's
emails on 5 or 13 Feb that she was asking RCN's assistance in respect of the legal claim – do you accept that
SP yes
DH you met SF for the first time just before meeting your employer with a debrief after
SP yes
DH this would have been an oppo for you to raise it with him
SP he should have raised it with me like SM did.
DH but by the time of the review meeting legal action was in prospect and it would have been clear in your mind that was the case – would it not be something you would
raise with him
SP by that time I was taking advice from MG and I trusted her more than the RCN because they hadn't given me any legal advice
DH did you have any convo with SF about legal advice
SP no
DH SF thinks there may have had a convo after you had instructed MG as to whether the RCN could help with legal advice. do you remember that?
SP no
DH just on the suspension review meeting – "SF has no note and no recollection that during the SRM you expressed holding any GC or sex realist beliefs at that meeting. could that be right?"
SP possibly
DH just in respect of other support SF provided – he attended a pre investigatory meeting on 4 June and he attended the IM in Sep 2024. And we can see from email correspondence…
… that there was contact between MG and SF and some of that was for MG asking for SF's notes which he duly did provide
SP yes
DH and some corr about the investigatory invite letter which was provided by SF
SP yes
And in addition to that MG was also suggesting ways SF might conduct this meetings
SP I don't remember that
DH look at p358 – this is an email from MG to SF and NP – starts at the foot of the page – MG setting out her thoughts in respect of the allegations and her concerns…
… if we look at p359 and we see at later points – eg p370 – another email 26 Aug 2024 – we can see MG giving a strong suggestion as to what should or should not be disclosed in respect of a certain matter – you accept she's having an input and hoping SF will do certain things?
SP yes
DH that takes us to a point where the IM was taking place. The allegations formulated against you and certain of those allegations are developed – that is the context which leads to the second claim.
And we see there's quite the detailed email from MG on this on p400. and we can see here the email begins o p400 7 Sep 2024 – another strong suggestion from MG to SF as to how the disc process…
… should be approached in respect of the new allegation [which I think, from memory was "misgendering" DU]
SP yes
DH and on p401 second par we can see MG setting out certain views in respect of potential further claims. And that you've been given advice in that respect by…
23 Dec 2024 and that advice came from both MG and your counsel [NC]?
SP yes
DH now we are going to turn to the aspect and events surrounding the second claim. This arose from a new allegation about you misgendering DU and that was included as an amendment to the existing third allegation against you which was being investigated.
SP yes
DH and this was about things you yourself had said during the investigatory process
SP yes
DH and I think we can see as part of this disco at the bottom of p400 was that this new allegation was being included in the ongoing disc process which began with your suspension
at the start of the year.
SP yes
DH and we can see that a view is reached and you have given instructions as to how that should be approached within the disc process itself
SP yes
DH I take it therefore you had a meeting with MG and poss NC to discuss how to approach this matter
SP yes
DH and this included advice about instructions you were going to give MG about how you should proceed.
SP yes
DH and by Dec 2024 this included "tactical" advice on how to approach the new allegation
SP yes
DH which was to keep it in the original investigation with the poss of you using it to show the inv was tainted
SP yes
DH so at this stage certainly there was a tactical decision taken that you didn't want to split up the disc process
SP yes
DH and then there would have been a disco between you and MG and potentially NC and I presume you would have been given advice about potential legal claims…
around this new allegations
SP yes
DH from both NC and MG
SP MG
DH I presume you would have received advice from NC and mG as at 23 Dec 2024 on what their view were about potential legal claims
SP not views – just that there could be a second legal claim
DH as broad as that
SP yes
DH look at p401 – the highlighted par on email of 23 Dec – from MG to SF – this is re the new allegation – I have advised Sandie that counsel and I are of the view that this is a discrimination case here [he reads] – take a moment to read it all
DH so it appears from this comm of 23 Dec 2024 you had received advice from MG and NC in respect of legal claims arising from the additional allegation – accept that?
SP yes
DH and that advice included raising them as separate claims within the ET
SP yes
DH and it goes into some detail about how this would be done – so some consideration being done to the impact of raising a new claim on the existing claim
SP yes
DH and that presumably is why there was no attempt to amend the existing claim, but to raise them as a separate matter
SP yes
DH so there must have been a tactical disco as to how best to approach and litigate these new allegations
SP yes
DH so this goes beyond general advice you might have a claim – do you accept that
SP yes
DH this email is the start of the request for the RCN providing legal advice in respect of the second claim – you understood that
SP yes
DH this was shortly before xmas – it goes on into early Jan and NP makes a decision on 17 Jan 2025…
… but it's in the minds of yourself and your legal advisors that RCN should provide legal advice. And by that stage you'd been getting advice and service from MG and NC
SP yes
DH for 10 months and I presume you were happy with the advice they were and are giving
SP yes
DH legal advice from RCN potentially involved the RCN instructing different solicitors – had you thought about that
SP yes
DH did you appreciate those solicitors might be looking at areas of the initial disc process you might be challenging in your first claim?
SP "I accept that yes"
DH did you appreciate they might have to do their own assessment of the merits of the case
SP I'd be happy to give them the info
DH it's more to do with the legal analysis and legal opinion – they had to asses the case – had you give any thought to that
SP no
DH and if they thought you did have a claim. the expectation would be that the claim would be pursued by the RCN solicitors. Had you appreciated that?
SP yes
DH in that scenario that RCN solicitors are raising and pursuing your second claim – I presume you'd still be wanting to keep your existing solicitor for your first claim
SP yes
DH so there was never any expectation the RCN's sols would take over
SP it was to do with the time frame of my first claim
DH would that not leave you in a situation where you have one claim pursued by your current sol and another relating to the same disc process pursued by
different sols
SP [indistinct]
DH was the intention that they would just provide funding
SP I was hoping that the RCN as it was still my union would provide legal input for my second claim
DH the decision was made not to provide you with legal advice. This was relayed to MG by SF on 20 Jan 2025. Presume you would have been told about that
SP MG told me about that.
DH SF won't disagree with MG's file not of that convo on p410 and part of that file note is MG asking SF to put that decision in writing to you
SP yes
DH now your claim form has suggested no reasons were provided until 24 Feb 2025 by NP
… you were however by NC taken to the email chain on p408. We can see there is an email to you from SF on 20 Jan 2025 – he is forwarding an email from NP to SF from 17 Jan in which NP sets out his reasons for the RCN not providing legal support in this case
SP yes
DH now you say you found this email in Aug 2025 in your junkbox. Do you accept now that SF had taken steps to provide you with a written rationale for why your legal support had been refused.
SP yes
DH there's a letter or email you send to NP on 3 March 2025 p417 and I think this email is the first time where you say in writing and in terms that "the RCN of nurses has failed me from the outset". Is this email of 3 March 2025 the first time you suggest the RCN…
… has failed you from the outset?
SP yes
DH despite the fact that your solicitor had been in fairly regular contact since the beginning of 2024. Could you not have raised it before? [something about the lack of legal advice]
SP "I believe it should have been offered"
DH I have come to the end of this section – it might be a bit early, but could we rise for lunch?
J yes – [gives warning about talking about evidence during lunch to SP] can we all come back at quarter to.
[judge rises]
[I think we are now going to go looking for the bundle – I have been warned…]
x.com/GussieGrips/status/2102721705609191680?s=20
@nickwallis Watch out for lurking leopards, Nick.
But before I do I just want to set out what is going on as I'm not sure it's clear. In fact if I hadn't interviewed SP before the trial started everything would be as clear as mud and given we're not going to be given any paperwork because of the idiosyncracies of the scottish
tribunal system it's like wading through treacle. I'm going to try to make this my last moan about the legal system today, but how on earth is the public meant to understand what is going on in these courts if we are not allowed to be given
any of the underlying documents which are being discussed. There's no reason not to be given them (certainly not versions redacted for GDPR) other than a latent distaste within the justice system for open justice.
Anyway – I am now sitting with the bundle being watched by a nice lady who is presumably here to stop me doing whatever I'm not meant to be doing.
Oh yes – the case. As i understand it – SP made a claim against NHS Fife and DU for discriminating against her when she objected to DU being in the F CR. When the handling of the disc investigation and "misgendering" charge came along it was thought there might be a…
… second claim against NHS Fife (this might still be live). SP thought RCN should fund this secondary claim and the reason given at the time was that it was an entirely separate claim and folding it into the initial claim would delay it. So…
RCN could/should fund the secondary claim against NHS Fife for allegedly ballsing up the investigation against SP whilst SP and MG and could focus on the initial claim. RCN refused.
They say this is their prerogative for technical reasons which I am sure will get explained in court but might be something to do with SP already getting legal advice about the same matter.
SP says it's because of her sex realist beliefs and that is why RCN are discriminating against her.
Okay so to the bundle – first up – the mysterious letter which the RCN claims to have sent (by email), but which SP says she never received. This is dated 8 Jan 2024 and says to SP "we have opened a case file in your name"…
this is clearly a potential legal case as whilst it is from SF, it references the RCN's legal person Gillian Tait as "supervising this". It asks Peggie if she has any protected characterisitcs (including "sex"). Then is goes on to say…
"In some member cases we may incur costs on your behalf, both in terms of RCN staff time and payments made to experts to advise and verify your claim. We shall pay these costs so long as we continue to represent you…
… Consistent with other Trades Unions and limits set by the courts themselves, there is a set minimum value certain types of claims need to reach before we are able to pursue them….
… if it becomes clear to the local RCN office that your claim has no reasonable prospect of success or you have been made an offer, we feel you should accept, but you wish to continue your claim, our agreement to indemnify you in respect of the above costs may be withdrawn. We may also withdraw our agreement if we feel you are making unreasonable demands on RCN services. These decisions rest with the local RCN office.
If we believe that your case requires a claim to an employment tribunal, we will make a referral for you to RCN legal services to assess whether your case has reasonable prospects of success and meets our minimum value threshold. We will be clear with you around that. If we agreed to support an employment tribunal claim on your behalf, this will involve the ACAW early conciliation process. If we do not agree to support your potential claim, then unfortunately, we will not be able to represent you during early conciliation. We will advise you of the RCN legal services decision as soon as we are able. Further information about early conciliation and time limits can be found on our online advice page: Employment tribunals and the courts.
The RCN has professional indemnity insurance that covers RCN staff and representatives in the event that we are careless in PRO providing you with the service, causing you financial loss."
So it's all very clear here that the RCN is gearing up for a fight on Peggie's behalf. The evidence so far was that this letter was sent to the wrong address and therefore not received by Peggie – whether it might have been deliberately sent to the wrong address or even
something more sinister simply is not known. The q as to whether it might have landed in SP's spam was asked this morning, but she couldn't answer.
Okay this is from MG's attendance note to a meeting with NP on 13 Feb 2024 p334 of the bundle:
"MG on attending Norman Provan of the RCN. Providing Norman with background information in relation to my clients case. Norman seems sympathetic to my client's plight and said he would send relevant policy documents in relation to rules regarding suspension. I advised Norman that my Firm view was that there was an industrial strategic role for the trade union to perform here not withstanding the fact that legal support is not being provided. I told him that a legal claim was likely to be raised. Norman confirmed that the union would continue to represent Sandy and he confirmed that Stuart Fraser is a full-time officer."
This is a letter sent by MG on 21 Mat 2024 to Adam Watson at NHS Fife. "Dear Adam.
Sandy Peggie and NHS five brackets (R1) and Dr Beth Upton (R2) case number 4104864/2024.
I refer to previous correspondence in connection with the above case and write with reference to the ongoing disciplinary investigation. There is a matter which is pertinent to the investigation and which my client is so far not disclosed to R1 or her union because it is one which causes her distress.
It had been my client's intention to share this information at the meeting on the 10th of May 2024, but she did not do so. I now, however, have my client's instructions to disclose this information to R1 and the RCN for the purposes of the ongoing investigation.
My client felt that she had no choice to inform her to how uncomfortable she was with R2's presence in the female only work changing rooms on the 24th/25th of December 2023 because it was apparent to her that R1 was unwilling to act on the concerns she had previously raised regarding men being allowed access to female only spaces.
One of the reasons my client is so uncomfortable about having to share a changing room with males is because on or about 1998, when she was aged 17, she was sexually assaulted on several occasions by her GP.
My client never told anyone about these sexual assaults and only disclose them for the first time around 20 years later to friends. To be clear the basis of my client's legal claims is that mentioned should not be permitted to access single sex basis for the reasons contained in the ET one.
However, it is felt important to explain the extent of my clients discomfort about R2's presence for the purposes of the ongoing investigation. Can you please confirm that it will prompt forward this email in confidence to disciplinary investigation officer?
The RCN has also been copied into this email as they continued to represent my client in the ongoing disciplinary process.
Thank you very much for your assistance."
This is the email from NP to SF on 20 Jan 2025 telling SF the RCN is not going to fund SP's case. p408 of the bundle:
"Hi Stuart
I have reviewed this request. There are a number of issues which are problematic in relation to the RCN providing legal support in this instance.
The issue is inextricably linked to her already scheduled employment tribunal. In her email, Sandie's solicitor states that they want the RCN to raise this as a separate ET as it is too late to add it to the existing case which is scheduled to be heard in February.
Although I accept it will be inconvenient to reschedule her employment tribunal to allow time for this new element to be added, doing so feels like a logical action to ensure all linked elements of Sanie's [sic] case are Heard together.
In addition you will be aware that the RCN legal officer does not extend to covering issues on which a member has received legal advice from another party. It is clear from Margaret's email that Sandie has discussed this additional element with her solicitor and with Council [sic] on that basis it is not within my discretion to go beyond our legal offer and offer legal support in this case.
Can you therefore go back to the member and advise that we cannot provide legal support in this case. It will of course be important that you advise of the time bar issues which are in place and suggest that Sandie should discuss with a legal representatives either postponing her scheduled ET to allow this additional element to be added or alternatively for her current legal provider to raise the second action separately on her behalf as they suggested we might ddo [sic]
Rregards.
Norman Provan"
Okay last one I've got time to do before we call go back in for the afternoon session. This is the notes by SF of his call with SP on either 5 or 8 Jan 2024. I will ignore the spelling:
"called to member to discuss situation, member described that new doctor has started and they are a trans female and this has made members of staff uncomfortable as they are using the female changing area, member had discussed her discomfort with this, with her Line manager however nothing was done, member was in a level of discomfort due to bleeding and the DR was in the changing room, the member advised the DR that she did not think that she should be in there and said something along the lines of this is the same as when they put a man in a female prison, discussed with the member of the potential that this could be seen as discriminatory and is most likely what has caused the suspension. Discussed with member process of investigation and potential outcomes, et cetera advised will open case."
[court is back in session]
J so we'll continue with xe – thank you, Mr Hay
DH just a couple of qs before we get to interactions with Gillian Tait (GT). Re one point with SF – most of your interaction with RCN was SF, NP or GT
SP yes
DH was there any contact you'd had with SF before the Jan 2024 phone convo
SP no
DH when you spke with your MP Mr Hanvey you met him at a surgery
SP yes
DH and you took along your letter of suspension and you said he was angry
SP yes
DH and it follows that SF would not have had sight of that letter by 5 or 8 of Jan
SP yes
DH I put to you that the email which was sent to you was your RCN membership number – I think it was your case reference number
J do you want to put that to the witness
DH no she won't know as she didn't see it – i just want to correct it for the record
[he moves on]
DH you were asked a q by my learned friend [NC] about the support you got from the RCN and you said GT contacted you a couple of times to check, in but there was no push by the RCN on establishing single sex facilities – two or three times?
SP yes
DH from 7 June 2025 to 22nd Dec 2025 there were at least 11 occasions when GT got in touch with you by email
SP that may well have been
DH she suggested having a chat or a meeting to discuss your case on 11 occasions – remember that
SP yes
DH and you opted not to do that at all
SP yes
DH so GT was just responding to emails from you and those sent on your behalf by MG
SP yes
DH and accordingly not for want of trying GT did not have an oppo to be able to have a convo with you about your case and what you'd be looking for from it re support – do you accept that?
SP yes
DH that's occasions where GT was getting in contact with you – but you'd be aware she was getting in contact with your employer including David Miller (DM) who was then head of HR at NHS Fife
SP yes
DH and this contact was suggested at the behest of requests GT received from June 2025 – and if we turn to p431 [of the bundle] we have a letter there from MG to NP 10 June 2025 which you presumably would have seen and approved
SP yes
DH and on p432 which is the second page of this letter I can see that it says [quotes from letter – re SP wanting RCN to write to the FHB to seek assurances there will only be single sex changing rooms on the basis of the then relatively recent For Womens Scotland Supreme Court..
… decision]. That is then repeated. If we go to p446 – this is an email chain between your sol and the RCN sol and if we go to the email at the bottom we see an email from MG to Ms Forrest [who is sitting directly in front of me] the request that RCN writes to FHB…
… and deals with her request of May 2025 and June 2025 [ie single sex spaces]. Then there is a letter directly from you on the same matter to the RCN (p449). Then on p450 there is a response from GT to you summarising your unfitness and barriers to you returning and sig part…
… of that would be who had access to the CR and GT says she can "certainly" write to the Board to seek clarification. Earlier today you said RCN wasn't giving you any support "at all" – your words – we can see that GT was pushing on your behalf. Accept?
SP yes
DH let's go to 7 August 2025 – this is the email she does send – doing what she said she would do raising issues of single sex facilities based on "biological sex" – that's the language she uses. "it is imperative that SP receives this assurance before she returns" see that
SP yes
DH so it looks like she is pressing that point for you – would you accept it
SP on this occasion yes
DH then next email to GT on 29 Aug 2025 and that's after DM has responded to GT with little or no detail which she forwarded on to you…
… so she was keeping you in the loop.
SP yes
DH Your email is p457 to p460 and we see the requests you are making of GT and we see the numbered points you want her to raise 1. [?] 2. accept GC beliefs are protected 3. in light of FWS ruling that single sex facilities are not
to be accessed by biological men. Then at the top of p460 you ask the union to send a copy of the letter to me and all people employed by the board so that we can see you are fighting for our rights. So a fourth request.
SP yes
DH and at p463 we have GT emailing DM of NHS Fife on 5 Sep 2025 and if we look at par 4 which begins "can you please confirm that…" that covers your q3 that single sex facilities will not be accessed by anyone other than those by bio sex
SP yes
DH two pars down GT is asking that staff can discuss single sex spaces without fear of consequences – that was your q1
SP yes
DH and further down we see she is asking that GC beliefs are acknowledged as protected
SP yes
DH you saw this email
SP yes
DH but there is no comms from you to GT saying you aren't happy with the terms in which she expressed your qs – you accept that
SP yes
DH so the only thing GT didn't do was to copy the email to all RCN members employed at NHS Fife.
SP yes
DH I asked if you hadn't comm'd with GT about her terms in the letter. You also didn't ask why she had not sent this to all RCN members
SP No [she's agreeing]
DH you're not a lawyer – I appreciate that – but is the action against GT that she did not copy her comms to all RCN members. Is that really what it comes to?
SP yes
DH just considering the report that you were getting from GT on this. GT expressed her own dissatisfaction with the responses she was getting from DM
SP I can't remember
DH well if you go to p472… we see an email at the bottom – GT on 21 Oct 2025
… in the second par GT says DM's response is "unhelpful" and that's an email to you directly. At p479 there's an email from GT on 14 Nov 2025 and this perhaps not an expression of dissatisfaction but an expression of an intention to continue to press DM. Do you accept that?
SP yes
DH and on p484 in Dec 2025 we can see GT in an email to you expressing her disagreement with DM's suggestion they should await the judgment of your first claim. and later on 15 Dec 2025 on p514 we can see in an email to you from GT in which GT says it is
"entirely unsatisfactory" not to have a resolution to this in terms of your return to work. "So GT was offering these views to you, keeping you in the loop and taking steps herself to receive assurances from DM – do you accept that"
SP yes
DH so when you said you didn't think the RCN wasn't doing anything "at all" that was not the case
SP "It wasn't right that I said "at all". I do believe that before GT took over from SF there hadn't been [indistinct]"
DH but your case is against the actions of GT who you will accept was doing something if not to your total satisfaction
SP yes
DH let's go to p513 which is your email response to GT's email on p484 – you make a request on 5 Dec 2025 for the RCN to make public crits of DM and FHB
– so you were asking for a public statement
SP yes
DH in this email you say "thank you for your assistance" – it's a platitude of course, but you do not seem to be taking issue with what she's doing
SP yes
DH given she had tried to have a meeting with you and you had not responded it might be difficult for her to understand how you were feeling about what you wanted her to do
SP yes
DH let's go to p515 in which GT explains why neither she nor RCN have made public comment
and she sets that out in her email to you. Do you accept that?
SP yes
DH so I appreciate you may have been mistaken or spoken a little bit loosely when you said GT had only been in contact 2 or 3 times "just to check in" – there was substantially more contact and effort on
her part, wasn't there?
SP yes
DH your final req of GT was after the amendment to your claim but it might be useful for context is on p516 and that's an email from you to GT on 15 Dec 2025 and in that email you ask for the RCN to org for women to come forward with a collective
grievance about single sex spaces
SP yes
DH GT doesn't do that but she emails you on 22 Dec p519 and in that email in the third par she says why that hasn't been done and there have not been any other members come forward to raise the matter about single sex spaces at NHS Fife
I appreciate you said people were "fearful" of coming forward, but the RCN acts in confidence and therefore they can come forward with confidence and if they did
we could raise a grievance. Did you give the RCN any steers as to who they might approach?
SP "I would expect them to ask most population of the female staff in hospital"
Does that expectation mean you didn't steer the RCn to anyone who you thought might be worth approaching?
SP that's right
DH you have had specialist legal advice on employment matters since early 2024
SP yes
DH part of your claim is focused on SF and his actions or inactions – but it's clear from Feb 2024 you wanted to raise proceedings against NHS Fife
SP yes
DH by that point you must have realised there was something about SF's advice you were not happy about
SP yes
DH we discussed you having received advice about an approach to litigation in late Dec 2024. You were probably aware there were time limits on employment claims
SP yes
DH Oct 2025 is quite a sig time after SF has apparently failed you in not apparently having advised you properly about legal action – would you accept that
SP yes
DH I would suggest there was nothing to prevent you from having raised a claim earlier than you did…
… would you accept that?
SP yes
[there is a pause – DH appears to be suggesting he's close to wrapping up]
DH those are all the q's I have for you
J no qs from me – re-ex?
NC yes a few qs – could we take a quick adjournment so I may take instruction from my sol
[J allows it and rises for 10 mins]
Whilst we are having a break here are some shots taken by @iain_masterton who is kindly supplying me with photos for the duration of the tribunal. They will adorn the court reports and blog posts I will be sending to subsribers. Iain is freelance, and brilliant.
@iain_masterton Please don't nick his work. He has v reasonable rates and he is super-responsive like any good snapper would be. If you would like to use his work, message him.
@iain_masterton Iain's work got pride of place in the ST interview I did with Sandie Peggie here:
www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/sandie-peggie-nursing-union-trans-activists-339v5lq5w
And there is an expanded and re-edited version of that interview on GenderBlog:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-i-want-this-to-be-a-wake-up-call/
[we are back for re-ex of SP]
NC first of all you were taken SF's note of his convo with you on p320 on 5 or 8 of Jan [reprinted above in this thread] – he says it took around 40 minutes you didn;'t
think it was as long as that – how long?
SP poss about 10 mins
NC the member advised the doctor that she should be in there – he's recorded you saying she should not be in there – is that how you described things to SF
SP "no I would have said 'he'"
NC I think we might have cleared this up but going back to the email with the number in the subject line – do you know your RCN number
SP [laughs] I know it starts 77 and its's six numbers long
NC can you go to p324 rh side of page towards the top – there is a panel headed
personal number. See it
SP yes
NC what is it
SP 987798
NC and what is that?
SP that's my RCN number
NC I thinkthat's as far as we need to go. I think it was an innocent misunderstanding on behalf of the respondent (R)
NC who was driving the process of getting answers from the FHB
SP my solicitor
NC did she do anything to push to get the views of other staff at NHS Fife
SP no
NC why did you not give the RCN a steer
SP "I didn't want to mention anyone's names. it was quite a toxic entoment and after I had been suspended I didn't want to put anyone else in that position. and that's why they didn't come forward either."
[SP has finished giving evidence. Next witness is going to be called. He is the former MP Neale Hanvey]
[Hanvey is bald and is wearing a green three piece tweed suit a green tartan tie with brown shoes. He has been affirmed.]
NC you were MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
NH trained as a psychiatric nurse in Fife, worked in London, latterly divisional nurse director for cancer dept in Royal Marsden and conducted primary research into children's cancer.
NC how did you come into contact with SP
NH was told about it as SP didn't live in the constituency and was asked if I could take the case on because of my interest in sex and gender and because she worked in my constituency I could take it on
NC when did you meet
NH Jan 2024
NC what was it like – met SP and her mum. I've dealt with distressed people. SP and her mum were really quite in "emotional distress". They sat down and I asked them to take me through events. Think I spoke to SP's mum initially and asked
why she got in touch and then I asked SP to outline what happened.
NC thanks – don't need to hear the detail of what happened on xmas eve. but was there any disco of the role of the union
NH it was quite a diff conversation – despite my prof background
i found it uncomfortable they had to relate their situation – I remember when I was a young man pointing out blood on a colleagues uniform and it was menstrual flood and I was embarrassed. We did discuss normal working practice and I asked what support she was getting from
the union and it was "reasonably clear to me she wasn't getting the support I would have expected or hoped" from a member in that situation.
NC did they mention union support
NH I asked what the union was doing – had they been liaising with the employer…
… because in my experience there are usually corridor conversations between management and unions so the process can be properly supported "it didn't seem to me that the issues were being taken seriously" especially around her suspension
it was my suspicion at the time that the RCN were not responding in the right way to support a member who was experiencing a complex difficulty in the workplace.
There was a Times article last weekend and it struck me that the RCN's comment about non-discrimination in the workplace didn't mention women – it mentioned LGBTQ people and it confirmed to me there wasn't a properly balancing of rights of interest…
NC what did you do
NH I thought what had happened to SP was wrong and whilst I couldn't intervene in a dispute I thought I could at least do something about what I thought were the deficiencies in the RCN's approach by contact others
NC what was that
NH I went to For Women Scotland and Sex Matters and used my connection with them to give SP the sort of support that I thought she should have received from her union
NC what happened next
NH unfortunately my WA messages with FWS are on a rolling delete so I couldn't refresh my memory as to what happened, but I messaged SM on 27 Jan after getting SP's consent to do so. I didn't involve myself in that so my job was just making sure
connections were made and it was handed over for SP and Maya (F from SM) to make those arrangements from there.
NC could we go to p788 [in the bundle]
NC what are we looking at on this page?
NH my message to the SM twitter account which is monitored by May and Helen at that time and it sets out
in detail of the generalities of the situation without any confidential info or identifiers and it "contains my reading of the RCN's disinterest in the case, really"
[NH going into a long explanation as to how his notes on SP were deleted/lost sent to someone who lost them when he left office, even though they perhaps shouldn't have been]
NC nfq
DH you say you have diary entry saying you met SP on Jan 2024 – how long did that meeting last?
NH 40 mins to an hour
DH was that typical
NH if you book an appt with me it usually is an hour – helps if you take it slowly
DH yes not rushing them out the door. so on p718 on 27 Jan you start taking steps and you saw a "boundary" between your office and an employment dispute
DH what's the "boundary"
NH there is and was no issue with me givingg political voice to the issue or the situation – what I can't or couldn't do is involve myself in an employment dispute – I couldn't come to a disc meeting. It would be difficult for any union to have a pol
coming along to a meeting. I can give a voice to the pol dimension – rights and wrong etc but not the individualised dispute – that's the boundary I'm referring to.
DH thanks that's helpful
DH that's it
J no qs for me – re-ex?
NC no
[J discharges NH and tells him not to discuss matters with any future witnesses. NH leaves]
[we are taking an early bath – we have finished surprisingly early. Lisa MacKenzie, Jennifer Wilmott and Pauline Fox are scheduled to give evidence tomorrow]
[court rises]
I might used the unexpected 45 minutes extra to go and have another bundle surf before heading starting on the court report. If they let me. I'm planning to get the court report emailed to subscribers by 7pm (I won't tweet it out until subscribers have had a…
… good chance to see it first) and then I'll send out the slightly more gossipy newsletter which goes to subscribers only before turning in (hopefully well before 10pm). To that end. If you would like to join the subscribers and support my work…
I would be enormously grateful if you would consider a small donation which will sign you up to everything going forward, no matter how small or big a donation you make. More info here:
genderblog.net/donate/
Thanks for reading. Bonus Bundle Surf material may appear on this thread if I get into the locked observation room and avoid all the leopards…
I did get a bit more bundle action, but not to myself – I was with two other journalists and we concocted a convoluted system of "inspecting" the pages we wanted to expect and copying them out. It means I need to sort all my notes out and can't put anything sensible up here.
So that's your lot. Look out for the court report in your email inboxes. Thanks again.
