Worth a read - snippets from the evidence of the delightful Deputy Director for HR, who refuses to apologise to the babies' parents or even admit she didn't know what her responsibilities were. She doesn't even think it was "that many" deaths.
05/11/2024 – Transcript of Week 8 Day 2 | The Thirlwall Inquiry
MR BERSHADSKI: Yes, my Lady.
MS DEE APPLETON-CAIRNS (affirmed)
Questions by Mr Bershadski.
Q. So by the time of 2016/2017 you had some 17 years' experience in HR; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. I think you have got some professional qualifications in HR as well; is that correct.
A. It is, yes.
Q. So would it be fair to say that the very fact of a concern being raised or an allegation about somebody who works with children that they may have harmed a child, that that would be sufficient to trigger a referral to be made to the Local Authority Designated Officer?
A. […] I think that
if there was evidence with regard to somebody who was harming a child, if something had been raised in that -- in that context then the person who was the conduit between the Trust and the local authority could have made that referral, yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that
you as the deputy director of HR at that time would be expected to have a particularly sound knowledge of this policy and other HR policies within the Trust?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is it right that
within this section of the policy, it doesn't talk about any particular evidence being provided or of any evidential threshold for a referral to be made; it simply says that if a concern is raised, a referral should be made; is that right?
A. Yes
Q. Okay. If we could please turn up the Speak Out Safely policy, it is INQ0003012. Now, is this a policy that you would have been familiar with in 2016?
A. No.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because the Speak Out Safely policy was dealt with entirely by Alison Kelly and Sue Hodkinson.
Q. Okay. If we can please turn one page back to page 11, can you see "Monitoring arrangements" –
A. Yes.
Q. […] it says: "Process for monitoring and annual audit is undertaken to ensure compliance with the policy current legislation and best practice." Then underneath that it says:
"Responsible individual: deputy director for HR and OD"?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that you at the time?
A. That was me. […]
Q. Yes. So were you responsible for it?
A. Yes.
Q. Then if we skip to the middle of the paragraph or in fact seven lines down, we can see it says: "A referral must always be made if the employer thinks that the individual has harmed a child or poses a risk of harm to children."
A. Yes. […] Alison Kelly was the LADO conduit, was the lead person for that. So it wouldn't have been me who would have made the referral.
[…]
Q. I am asking you about your knowledge of what the purpose was of you establishing whether she had been working anywhere else?
A. My understanding is I was asked to -- to find that information out, which I did, I brought it back. …the bit about not working at any Trust, that was just what I was asked to find out, did I –
did I personally believe that there was evidence to show that she was harming children anywhere at that time? I would have to say no –
Q. What investigations had you conducted into the evidence of Letby harming children by that point?
A. I had done no investigations at all because I wasn't aware there was any evidence – […]
Q.
On what basis was it your role to come to a conclusion about the evidence of Letby harming children?
A. It wasn't. It's just a question you asked me.
[Q.] Would you agree looking back on it that given that clearly the concern by this point was that Letby might pose a risk to children, that if you had applied the policies that I have taken you to
you should have recommended a referral be made to the LADO?
A. So
based on the fact that there was no evidence that I was aware of at that time and I didn't raise the fact that it should be a LADO referral, the person who should make the referral was the LADO lead, who is Alison Kelly and it had been raised so there was no reason for me to raise it again.
Q. Okay. So you have explained that you had checked that Lucy Letby wasn't working anywhere else at this point. Did you take any steps to make sure that she wouldn't be able to work anywhere else in the future?
A. No, because it was -- it was going to be -- my understanding was it was going to be made clear to Lucy Letby that if she wanted to work anywhere else then she had to declare that to -- I believe it was Karen Rees.
Q. But forgive me, what was to stop her not complying with that instruction and seeking work elsewhere?
A. Nothing.
Q. Were you aware that Lucy Letby visited the Alder Hey Hospital on a number of occasions and that she was only stopped from doing that in June 2017?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware that plans were made for her to go on a course to another hospital Glan Clwyd?
A. No.
[…]
Q. […] it appears to be a concern from a police officer to make sure that Nurse Lucy Letby is unable to work at any other hospitals which ends up making its way to you. Did you take any action to address that police officer's concerns as far as you can remember?
A. I can't recall this email at all.
[…]
Q. Okay. I am going to ask you a few questions about the legal advice that you obtained from DAC Beachcroft and you discuss this within your witness statement from paragraph 25. …you have said in your statement -- that you contacted him on 5 July 2016: "The purpose of the call was to seek advice from Ian as to the organisational risks around removing Letby from the NNU." […]
Q. Well, were you aware that
there had been a large number of unexplained, unexpected deaths on the neonatal unit?
A.
At that point it wasn't that, it wasn't that many because they were talking -- we had had the Coroner's report that -- I can't remember the date, but it was they were, they were commissioning a report from the Royal College of Paediatricians in there.
There was no commonality on the -- on the spreadsheets that I saw and then there was this, and then
there was this Dr Brearey saying he had a drawer of doom but he wouldn't let anybody see what was in the drawer and it was all just very vague and odd.
Q. Well, were you aware by this point that there were a number of Consultants who had a genuine concern that there was a nurse deliberately causing these deaths?
A. The only Consultant that I knew of that was expressing any kind of concern for a long, long time was Dr Brearey.
Q. Did you go and speak to Dr Brearey about why he had these concerns?
A. No.
Q. Well,
how were you able to tell your legal adviser that you were satisfied that there were no malicious issues involved when there had been an increase in deaths and a Consultant, as far as you were aware, was concerned that they were being deliberately caused by a nurse?
A. Well,
I would like to have seen what was in his drawer of doom, but –
Q. Did you ask to go and see his drawer of doom?
A. Well, no, because I had said to Alison Kelly: send somebody down there, this is ridiculous. Somebody needs to -- he needs to give us whatever he's got. Why -- why isn't he doing that?
Q. Right, so –
A. But -- but to answer your question
, Andrew, I kept asking -- don't forget, I am not an Executive, I am on the peripheries, I am doing the day-to-day job and I kept saying, you know, have we got any evidence yet, is there anything at all we can hang our hat on here? And I just kept being told: no and that they were looking into it, that Ian Harvey had gone through every case, Alison Kelly had gone through every case and the -- there was nothing untoward from the Coroner. So for me there was -- there was nothing here other than Dr Brearey saying he had some concerns about a nurse, a specific nurse.
Q. How could you be satisfied that there were no malicious issues if a Consultant was saying as far as you were aware that there were malicious issues, you hadn't even spoken to him about his concerns and as far as you were aware, he had a drawer of evidence of some description that you hadn't even seen; so how could you be satisfied that there were no malicious issues involved despite all of that?
A. […]
I was satisfied that we had no evidence of any wrongdoing at that time because I kept asking the question.
Q. But you knew by this point, because this was now a number of days after the NNU action planning meeting, so you knew that Letby had been removed from shift and that you had undertaken the task of checking that she wasn't working anywhere else, so there was surely enough of a concern to have taken those steps that there might be malicious issues involved?
A. I -- at that point, my view was if we take her off the unit, let's see if there is a correlation between, you know, the -- the spike and there not being now a spike. …
A. From my perspective. That's what I saw,
Andrew.
(A short break) (3.55 pm)
MR BERSHADSKI: Ms Cairns, just before I resume my questioning
I am going to ask you refer to me as "Mr Bershadski" rather than by my first name, if you don't mind.
A. Sorry?
Q. I am just going to ask you before we get back into the questions that you refer to me by "Mr Bershadski" rather than by my first name, if you don't mind, in your responses?
A. Sorry.
Q. Ms Cairns, just before the break, I think you said that one of the reasons that you thought there were no malicious issues involved when you spoke to Ian Pace on 5 July 2016 is because there hadn't been that many deaths as far as you were concerned. Now, are you aware that there had been 13 deaths in the space of just a little bit over a year by that point?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. How many deaths did you think there had been?
A. I can't remember.
You told this Inquiry that you thought there hadn't been that many deaths?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I am suggesting to you that that was completely wrong and there had been a very high number of deaths compared to the usual two to three average deaths per year that the neonatal unit experienced up until 2015?
A.
There had been a spike in deaths but at that point when I spoke to Ian Pace, I didn't think that there had been anything other than that spike.
Q. Yes, that is a spike of 10 deaths that Eirian Powell had looked at in her thematic review. So on any account it was a very significant spike and very many deaths, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you explain in your statement at paragraphs 39 and 41 that you worked with Sian Williams to look at shift patterns and, in particular, whether there was a particular correlation with Lucy Letby; is that right?
A. No, I don't think I said that. Sian was looking at the patterns.
A. […] I just had a look at it and I just said, you know: have you found anything? And she went "not really" and then she went off to speak to Alison Kelly but it wasn't – it wasn't my decision to make.
Q. Sorry, so you are saying that Sian Williams told you that she hadn't really found anything as a result of her analysis?
A. I think she said there was a cluster – there was a cluster of three days/nights or babies that she may have a concern about and that was -- but then she said she wanted to go and speak to Alison about it so that was it. It was a passing comment.
Q. The Inquiry has heard evidence from Sian Williams this morning who has explained that after she had conducted her analysis, she had real concerns about the amount of time that Lucy Letby was on shift when babies were collapsing and dying and that she recommended that the police be called in on a number of occasions; that was her evidence to the Inquiry this morning?
A. (Nods)
[…]
Q. Well, did you give any consideration to whether Chris Green was sufficiently independent to act as the investigating officer for the grievance?
A. I have always known Dr Chris Green to be an extremely honest and honourable man who had a lot of experience with grievance investigation -- in fact disciplinary investigations. So there was -- there was himself and there was a couple of other people that I put forward as suggestions but it was again up to the Executive Team who they chose.
Q. Well, do you agree that it's not appropriate when you have appointed an independent chair to hear a grievance to start involving Executives at the Trust and yourself in drafting the outcome?
A. It would be absolutely usual for me to draft, so that is the first thing. To include Alison and Sue, they wanted a copy of the draft. They weren't being involved, they weren't being invited to make any comments and certainly that was curtailed. Should I have sent it on reflection? No probably I shouldn't of, because I think you are right, I think that they thought oh -- well, certainly Alison, Sue wouldn't of, but Alison thought: oh, here's -- you know, I think I can add something in and it was like, well, no, you can't. So I think you are right on that point.
Questions by MR BAKER
MR BAKER: Ms Appleton-Cairns, my name is Richard Baker.
Can I begin by offering a space at the start of my questions for reflection. I represent a number of Families whose children were murdered or attacked by Lucy Letby. Do you feel, on reflection, that the HR process and the way in which you managed it contributed to a delay in bringing Letby to justice?
A.
No, I do not.
Q. Even with the benefit of all that you have seen and heard,
you don't think that your actions contributed at all to a delay in bringing Letby to justice?
A.
No, I do not. I think that the grievance procedure was an opportunity for the Consultants to bring forward and explain in more detail what their concerns were and any evidence that they had. And there was nothing in that grievance that they brought, that they brought to the attention of somebody who was independent, an independent chair.
Q. Well, I think you have already been asked questions about how independent that process was. But can I say this: this was a process that was designed to pander to the whims of a serial killer, wasn't it, the grievance process, with the benefit of hindsight?
A. I don't believe that.
Q. Do you have any skills or experience at all that permitted you to understand or interpret the clinical issues in this case?
A. The what, sorry?
Q. Did you have any skills or experience that permitted you to interpret the clinical issues in this case?
A. No. […]
Q. Can we look at your witness statement, please, and to paragraph 17, which I think sets out your first involvement. You should have a copy of it in front of you I think, it won't appear on the screens. It's a reference to a meeting on 30 June 2016, which you attended two neonatal unit action planning meetings and in attendance to both meetings were Alison Kelly, Jill Galt, Sue Hodkinson, Sian Williams, Ruth Millward, Julie Fogarty and Karen Rees?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were meetings arranged to provide assurance to the Executives as to how the situation on the NNU was being handled in light of the increase in neonatal deaths?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was a meeting that was attended only by yourself and the nursing staff?
A. Okay.
Q. Well, that's "yes", isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. You have already said in evidence that you at no time went to speak to any of the Consultants who were making allegations against Lucy Letby?
A. (Nods)
Q. That's correct, isn't it? That's what you say in your witness statement?
A. Yes.
Q.
So you approached this issue by having a meeting on the face of it about these issues with the nursing staff, but didn't seek to balance that by speaking to any of the Consultants. Why was that?
A. I was -- I was asked to attend this meeting. It wasn't my meeting.
Q. Well, no, that's, I'm sorry, not a very good answer because you have made various assertions in this Inquiry about the evidence that was being presented to you as to the quality of the allegations that were being made by the Consultants?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you say before the Inquiry that the evidence was never presented to your satisfaction, then I think it's important that you justify your approach. So you spoke to the nurses.
You never spoke to the doctors?
A. There was no evidence presented to me at all.
Q. Well –
A. By anybody.
Q. I'm sorry. We are going to come on to a note in a moment where you make assertions about the quality of evidence that was available. I think it's quite a simple point.
You spoke to the nurses, but you never spoke to the doctors. Why not?
A. Because the doctors would only speak to the Executives.
Q. So you are saying that the doctors –
A. And I knew Ravi. I knew Ravi quite well.
Q. Are you saying the doctors refused to speak to you?
A. The doctors didn't speak to me. You would have to ask them why they didn't speak to me.
Q. No. Are you saying that you sought to speak to the doctors and they refused to speak to you?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So the answer is you didn't seek to speak to the doctors, did you?
A. No. […]
Q. Well, doesn't this bring us to a key issue in your interactions with this case; that employment issues are of nothing compared to the seriousness of a potential murderer on this ward?
A. I would agree.
Q
. So in permitting this grievance process to proceed, you would accept, wouldn't you, that you did so based upon incomplete and un-investigated facts?
A. No because we had -- there had been the Coroner who had looked at each of the deaths and the Chief Executive had brought in the Royal College of Paediatricians.
Q. Sorry, which -- which –
A. We had had that –
Q. Which Coroner?
A. -- we had had that report –
Q.
Sorry, you keep saying things in your evidence that I'm afraid don't appear to have any reality to the facts of the case. Which Coroner made a determination in which case?
A. The Coroners had gone -- I was told that the Coroner had gone through each of the baby deaths.
Q. That's untrue.
A. Oh, okay. That's what I was told.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I was told by the Chief Executive and also by Alison Kelly.
Q. So Ian Harvey and Alison Kelly reassured you that the Coroner had investigated all of the deaths?
A. Yes.
Q. And that there was nothing to be concerned about?
A. Yes -- well, no. They said that there was
only -- there was two where they couldn't be very specific about what the cause of death had been.
Q. Right.
A. But they couldn't identify that there was foul play either is what they told me.
Q. And that's information that had come from the Coroner?
A. Sorry?
Q. That is information that had come to you, obviously via Ian Harvey, but from the Coroner?
A. It wasn't Ian Harvey. It was Alison Kelly and Tony Chambers.
Q. Yes, but they were referring to determinations by a Coroner?
A. Yes, but they had also instigated the Royal College of Paediatricians to come in who had already completed their investigation and I – again I was told verbally that there was nothing untoward within that report and that's the only reason that the grievance went ahead when it did.
Q. But you hadn't been told that by the date of your conversation with Mr Pace in July 2016, had you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, no because the investigation hadn't been concluded by then.
A. Okay.
Q. Again, throughout the grievance process, Letby via her Royal College of Nursing representative, advocated strongly that the Consultants should be disciplined, didn't she?
A. He. Yes.
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
