1

IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER 3300052/2014

WATFORD

BETWEEN

DR H DARE

Claimant

-and-

WEST LONDON MENTAL HEALTH NHS TRUST

Respondent

WITNESS STATEMENT OF RACHAEL MOENCH

I, RACHAEL MOENCH of West London Mental Health NHS Trust, Trust

Headquarters, 1 Armstrong Way, Southall, UB2 45A, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am employed by West London Mental Health NHS Trust (“the Trust”) as

Director of Workforce and Organisational Development.

2. I joined the Trust in my current role in December 2012. I have over 20 years’

experience in HR roles in the NHS, with over 10 years spent working at

director level.

3. I make this statement in connection with a claim brought against the Trust by

Clinical Psychologist, Hayley Dare. I understand that Hayley Dare has alleged

that she suffered a number of detriments due to her having made a “protected

disclosure” when she raised complaints about Andy Weir to the Trust’s Chief

Executive, Steve Shrubb, on 19 March 2013.

The Investigation

4. My first involvement with Hayley Dare arose in the course of an investigation

into allegations of bullying and harassment which had been made by Hayley

Dare and a number of her colleagues in March 2013.

5. In March 2013 the Trust was advised by the Care Quality Commission (“the

CQC”) that three anonymous complaints had been made in respect of Andy

Weir, who was the Trust’s Executive Director of Forensic and Specialist

2

Services at the time.

6. These complaints came to light against a background of the Trust taking

significant steps across the organisation to try to improve staff morale and to

effect a real culture change within its workforce. This culture change

programme was a priority at Board level in the Trust and was led by Steve

Shrubb as Chief Executive. However, responsibility for the day to day delivery

of the programme sat within HR and so it was a project that I was heavily

involved in.

7. One of the initiatives that we used was a “fish bowl” exercise, in which 40 staff

volunteers (known as ‘reporters’) interviewed at their discretion 10 colleagues

in each area of the Trust in order to obtain feedback. This exercise

highlighted particular areas of the Trust where staff satisfaction was low and

where a number of staff had concerns about the culture of the organisation.

8. We also knew from our staff survey, which is carried out annually, that there

were areas in the Trust where bullying and harassment was a particular

concern. One of these areas was Specialist and Forensic Services.

9. Given the complaints to the CQC and the fact that we had indications of a

problem from our own internal staff survey and “fish bowl” exercise, we

agreed that we needed to take steps to establish whether there was a

problem and, if so, what was causing it. However, as the complaints had been

made anonymously, we had difficulty finding a starting point for an

investigation. Therefore, we initially decided to conduct a low level, informal

investigation, to help us to identify the issues. In fact, within a few days and

before that investigation had got underway, a number of individuals met

privately with the Trust’s Chief Executive, Steve Shrubb, to raise specific

concerns about Andy Weir, alleging bullying, intimidation and harassment.

One of those individuals was Hayley Dare.

10. Steve Shrubb came to me to discuss the allegations and we agreed that it

was appropriate to commission a full investigation. We also agreed that we

should appoint an independent, external investigator, because of Andy Weir’s

senior position within the organisation and the extent of the conduct

complained of. I spoke with the Trust’s legal advisors, Capsticks, about the

investigative consultancy service they offer through their HR Advisory team. I

was offered, and accepted the services of Bridget Prosser, a qualified solicitor

who had been employed by Capsticks in its employment department in the

past but had since left and now carries out investigations as an independent

consultant. I agreed terms for her engagement and terms of reference were

drawn up and provided to Ms Prosser. She was specifically asked to advise

3

on whether there were any issues of conduct which had breached the Trust’s

Dignity at Work Policy, and/or which should be considered further under the

Trust’s Disciplinary Policy. Ms Prosser carried out her investigation and

submitted her report to me once it was complete [462-520].

11. I can confirm that Ms Prosser’s investigation was entirely independent. At no

time did I, or anyone else at the Trust, instruct her, through Capsticks or

otherwise, of the way in which she should carry out her investigations or the

findings she should make.

12. Whilst the investigation was underway, Mr Weir was suspended and support

was put in place for staff who were involved.

13. Hayley Dare was interviewed as part of the investigation on 8 and 9 April

2013. I then received an email from her on 24 April 2013 (also sent to Steve

Shrubb) asking what her future at the Trust held on an interim or substantive

basis. She asked if she could be informed about what other positions were

available for her at the Trust. She expressed particular concern at being

associated with the investigation in relation to Andy Weir and confirmed that

she wanted to establish clear plans to deal with Mr Weir’s possible return to

work [455].

14. I responded to the email the following day and suggested that we met up to

talk through the issues that she had raised in order to consider how we could

support her through this difficult time [455].

15. On 26 April 2013, Hayley Dare came to my office unexpectedly in a

distressed state. She informed me that she had received an anonymous letter

referring to the investigation. Later on, I also became aware that one of her

colleagues had also received a similar letter. The letters accused staff of

engaging in a witch hunt against Andy Weir and had a threatening tone [456-

457]. Both members of staff were understandably distressed at having

received the letter and we offered as much support as we could, informed the

police and then facilitated and aided the criminal investigation that followed.

It was my utmost priority to offer them both my support and assistance, in

what I recognised were extremely upsetting circumstances.

16. On 29 April 2013, I held a further meeting with Hayley Dare to discuss her

wellbeing, go over any concerns that she had and to generally offer her the

Trust’s support. The meeting was productive and we talked through

everything in detail. By the end she appeared calmer and happier. She

informed me that she wanted to continue with the investigation and the

existing working arrangements. Throughout this period of time Hayley Dare

4

continued to have access to the police and myself for support and

information.

17. Once the police were content to allow us to, we also conducted our own

investigation and asked Bridget Prosser to pull the technical aspects of that

investigation together and to prepare a report [462-520]. Andy Weir was

questioned by police in respect of this allegation and the police and Trust

were ultimately satisfied that he had not sent the letter. Despite extensive

investigation, we have never been able to identify the sender.

18. Ms Prosser’s investigations were very detailed and thorough and involved

interviews with numerous members of staff. They had a very significant

impact across the service and it was a hugely challenging time for the staff

involved and for those on the periphery. By the time the investigations had

concluded, irrespective of the findings, it had become clear to the senior

management team that it would potentially be problematic for Andy Weir to

return to his role with Forensic and Specialist Services. Whether the

allegations against him were proven or not (it will be noted from the reports

that the investigation concluded some allegations against him were

substantiated albeit that in my view they would not have been sufficiently

serious to warrant dismissal), it was clear to us that his management style

had polarised his management team and had subsequently divided groups of

staff within the Service. Therefore, discussions began with Mr Weir and his

representative about how to move forward. During this time Andy Weir began

to search for alternative employment and ultimately found another role

outside the Trust. Therefore, his employment terminated on 31 March 2014.

Allegations

19. I am aware that Hayley Dare has made a number of allegations about

detriments that she alleges she suffered as a result of having ‘blown the

whistle’ about Andy Weir’s conduct. I set out below my comments in relation

to the particular matters that I was involved with:

Special Leave May 2013

20. On 16 May 2013 I received an email from Hayley Dare seeking my advice

about the possibility of taking a period of “whistleblowers” leave. Hayley Dare

explained that she had met with Occupational Health (OH) the previous day

and was under intolerable stress, having spoken up about perceived bullying

by Andy Weir. She also referred to the effect of the anonymous letter that

she had received and stated that although she did not feel unwell, she felt

that she was being subjected to unsustainable levels of occupational stress

5

and needed to remove herself from the situation. She stated that she would

value my direction in relation to this and that she was happy for me to

approach OH if necessary [458].

21. I agreed that she could take a period of special leave with immediate effect

and I approached OH to seek their advice. I met with Tom Sensky and Janet

Ballard (OH doctors) on 24 May 2013. Following our meeting, Tom Sensky

confirmed his advice in an email to me, which recommended that Hayley

Dare be offered further leave, or possibly be redeployed until the investigation

relating to Andy Weir had concluded [459].

22. I maintained contact with Hayley Dare whilst she was on special leave and

agreed a number of extensions to that leave, at her request, until her eventual

return to work on 30 September 2013. I also maintained contact with Hayley

Dare’s managers throughout her period of absence, and ensured that they

were aware of the situation [460 and 461].

23. I do not accept that Hayley Dare was ‘placed’ on special leave, as now

alleged, or that the period of special leave was detrimental. As set out above,

the Trust in fact agreed to Hayley Dare’s own request for a period of leave. It

was then extended on a number of occasions, again at Hayley Dare’s

request. In the exceptional circumstances of this case we were more than

happy to agree this period of special leave, in order to support Hayley Dare.

The Trust paid her in full throughout her period of leave and it was not

recorded as annual leave or sickness absence, so that it had no detrimental

impact on her entitlements.

Return to Work

24. On 18 June 2013 I met with Hayley Dare to informally discuss her ongoing

concerns about returning to work. I provided her with reassurance that we

were progressing with the investigation and discussed the ways in which we

could support her return to work. I suggested that if she felt ready to return

then the next stage would be for us to hold a more formal meeting with Sarah

Rushton to explore this in greater detail.

25. Two days later, on 20 June 2013, I received an email from Hayley Dare. She

suggested that it would be helpful for Steve Shrubb and me to meet with her,

rather than involving Sarah Rushton (Interim Director of Specialist and

Forensic Services). She explained that this was on the basis that Steve and I

were the only ones who had a complete overview of the situation and in

whom she had complete confidence. Hayley Dare stated that she felt

6

reassured by the support that Steve and I had given her [521].

26. I responded to Hayley Dare’s email the following day [521] and Steve Shrubb

and I met with her on 1 July 2013. The purpose of our meeting was to

discuss the arrangements for her return to work. During the meeting Steve

Shrubb informed her that we were keen for her to return to work and to retain

her skills and expertise in the organisation. He acknowledged that she had

had a difficult time and reassured her that the Trust’s priority was to continue

to support her and find a way forward that suited both her and the

organisation.

27. In this meeting we discussed the two main options that we considered were

available for Hayley Dare returning to work. The first option was for her to

return to work in a clinical psychologist role but in another clinical service unit

(CSU), and we agreed that the most likely CSU would be local services, as

this was where her skills and clinical expertise would be most suited. The

advantage of this option was that Hayley Dare would be working in a

completely different area, with a different management team and without any

of the challenges that we were facing within Forensic and Specialist Services.

Hayley Dare informed us that she had a particular interest in personality

disorder services and in complex trauma, and we discussed possible areas of

work for her on that basis.

28. The second option discussed was for Hayley Dare to return to her role in

Specialist and Forensic Services. However, we acknowledged the difficulties

and sensitivities surrounding this and outlined the support arrangements we

were setting up for the senior team and the staff working within the services,

in light of Andy Weir’s suspension and the ongoing investigation into the

anonymous letter.

29. We confirmed to Hayley Dare that we would support her, whichever option

she elected to take and confirmed that if she chose to return to her original

role, we would put a tailored support package in place for her. We explained

that the next stage would be to meet with Sarah Rushton (Interim Director of

Specialist and Forensic Services) and Paul Meechan (Service Director for

Forensic Services) to arrange the details of this. Both Sarah and Paul had

joined the Trust and the Service relatively recently and so were not part of the

investigation or the historic issues within the service.

30. At the end of the meeting Hayley Dare agreed that she would reflect on the

options we had discussed and let us know over the following two weeks what

her preferred return arrangements would be. We also offered to provide

coaching support to assist her with this decision, and I said that I would

7

contact her with the details for this. I felt that the meeting was very positive

and provided both parties with a clear way forward.

31. On 3 July 2013 I wrote to Hayley Dare to confirm the points that we had

discussed at our meeting on 1 July 2013 and to outline the two possible

options for her return to work [524-525].

32. On 10 July 2013 I received an email from Hayley Dare thanking Steve and I

and confirming that she had found the meeting very positive. She said she

had spent a significant period of time considering her options and would like

to take up our offer of discussing her options further with the assistance of a

life coach, but that her current thoughts were that she would like to return to

working within the Specialist and Forensic CSU on the basis that she felt that

this was where her skills and experience lay. She acknowledged that it

would be difficult and challenging to pursue this option and that meeting with

Sarah Rushton as the next step would help her explore possible options for

taking this forward. She thanked Steve and me for the ongoing support and

time that we had both given to her [526].

33. On 17 July 2013 I met with Hayley Dare, together with Sarah Rushton, to

discuss the options for her return to work and the support that we wanted to

provide to her in doing so. In relation to the possible roles that she could

return to within the same CSU, we discussed again the broad options.

Hayley Dare said that she felt that the Women’s Service was probably too

intense an environment to return to, although she did not want to discard the

option completely at this stage. We talked about her returning to a role in the

Men’s Service and she expressed an interest in this possibility. Hayley Dare

noted that it would involve working with the same management team as she

would have done in the Women’s Service, but felt that she could deal with

that. Although we did not talk in detail about the option of a role within Local

Services, we acknowledged that this was a further option for her that could be

discussed if she wished. However, Hayley Dare made clear to us that she

was passionate about continuing her career within Forensic Services and we

were therefore keen to do whatever we could to support her return to work

within that area.

34. In that meeting, we moved on to discuss the Clinical Lead role that Hayley

Dare held at the time. Clinical Lead roles are appointed to for a fixed term

period of 2 years, with the option to extend for a further year by mutual

agreement. Additional remuneration of £10,000 per annum is paid to Clinical

Leads in recognition of the increased level of responsibility.

8

35. Hayley Dare asked whether she would be able to keep her status as Clinical

Lead if she chose to return to a post outside the Women’s Service. She

expressed concern about the potential impact on her career if she were to

lose that status. We explained that it was not likely to be possible to move her

into a Clinical Lead role in either the Men’s Service or Local Services because

there were already Clinical Leads appointed on a fixed term basis in both of

these services. We explained this to Hayley Dare and assured her that we

would look into it further, but that whatever option she chose we would ensure

that she was provided with the support needed to get up to speed quickly and

ensuring that her career was not impacted. Sarah Rushton confirmed that

following our meeting she would look into the terms of Hayley Dare’s Clinical

Lead appointment.

36. During the course of the meeting we also discussed mentoring support that

we were making available through the arrangements the Trust was

commissioning from Tavistock Consulting. I also offered a second option of

organising an independent coach to support Hayley Dare with her decision

about her return to work. Sarah Rushton outlined the support that she was

putting in place for the senior management team in Forensic Services and

she reiterated that the management style, behaviour and culture was

changing. We discussed with Hayley Dare that should she return to be part

of the senior team in the Specialist and Forensic CSU, she would be part of

this programme of support and development to assist her re-integration into

the team.

37. Hayley Dare raised the issue of communication around her return to work and

we agreed that we would need to have a plan for managing this appropriately

and sensitively, depending on the role that she wished to return to. In terms of

timescales, we all agreed that we were aiming to return Hayley Dare to work

as soon as possible, and that once she had made the decision in terms of the

role that she wished to return to, we would make the necessary arrangements

for her as quickly as we could.

38. The following day I had a further discussion with Sarah Rushton about the

options for Hayley Dare within Forensic Services. Sarah had obtained a copy

of Hayley Dare’s Clinical Lead appointment letter, which confirmed that her

appointment commenced on 1 August 2011, and details about other clinical

Lead roles. Therefore, the fixed term period of Hayley Dare’s appointment as

Clinical Lead was coming to an end and I was advised by Sarah that it was

not necessarily the case that she would have been appointed for a further

term. We were conscious that we did not wish to cause Hayley Dare any

further distress or to place her in a difficult position when she was not at work.

9

We therefore agreed that we would offer to extend her appointment as

Clinical Lead in the Women’s Service, if she chose to go back into that post

There were no vacancies at that time for Clinical lead posts and we

considered that it would not be appropriate or proper for the Trust to remove

Clinical Leads from their posts. We also noted that Hayley Dare would be

going into Local or Men’s services with limited knowledge of them, having

worked within Women’s Services for so long. In the circumstances, we

agreed that it was simply not possible for the Trust to offer Hayley Dare

immediate appointment into a Clinical Lead role in any other service.

39. On 18 July 2013 I sent an email to summarise the points that we had

discussed at our meeting and also to outline the updated position in relation

to the Clinical Lead role. I was mindful to set out as much detail as possible

in relation to Hayley Dare’s possible return to work options, and the issue of

the Clinical Lead role, in order to ensure that she had complete clarity as to

her position and was in possession of all of the facts before making her

decision [528-528a].

40. Shortly after sending that email, I was contacted by Steve Shrubb who

showed me an email that he had received from Hayley Dare [527]. The email

talked about Hayley Dare being disheartened by the meeting she had

attended with Sarah Rushton and she asked to meet with Steve Shrubb in

person to discuss her options further.

41. When I read the email I had some concerns about Hayley Dare and the

approach that she was taking. Firstly, the version of events that she recorded

in her email was very different from my recollection of how the meeting had

gone. However, I was also concerned that she had left our meeting and,

instead of coming to me or Sarah Rushton to discuss next steps or concerns,

she had gone straight to the Chief Executive.

42. Steve Shrubb and I discussed Hayley dare’s email and we agreed that it was

important that the process of returning her to work should be continue to be

managed and facilitated by Sarah Rushton and I. Steve Shrubb was happy

with the steps that we had taken so far.

43. Hayley Dare also responded directly to my email on 22 July 2013, although

she copied Steve Shrubb in on her reply [529]. In that email shje expressed in

some detail her concern that she would not be able to retain her position as

Clinical Lead unless she returned to the Women’s Service. She confirmed

that she would wait to hear from me further in relation to the proposed

coaching support. Again, the email gave me real cause for concern as I felt

that the perception of the meeting that was portrayed in her email was

10

inaccurate.

44. It should be noted that these two emails from Hayley Dare were particularly

important from my perspective when considering later events and how they

were dealt with. These emails were my first personal experience of Hayley

Dare subtly misrepresenting what was said at meetings and in conversations.

That meant that when other individuals later came to me independently

raising concerns about the same behaviour from her, I began to see a pattern

emerging.

45. On 30 July 2013 I sent an email to Hayley Dare to update her in relation to

the coaching support that we had agreed to put in place for her. I also asked

her to confirm her annual leave dates so that we could look at a timescale for

her return to work [531]. In the email chain that followed she confirmed her

annual leave dates as being from 7 to 27 August 2013 and I was able to

confirm that Simon Tucker was available to meet with her to provide coaching

support before she went on leave. I confirmed that following this I would

arrange a further meeting with Sarah Rushton when she returned from leave

in order that we could arrange and agree on next steps [532].

46. I was subsequently absent on annual leave from 26 August 2013 to

10 September 2013. Upon my return I sent an email to Hayley Dare on 11

September 2013 to confirm that we had scheduled a meeting on 13

September 2013 to discuss her return to work. I asked whether it would be

possible for her to provide some indication of her current thinking regarding

her preferred options for her return to work, and any specific questions she

would like us to respond to in advance of the meeting, so that we could deal

with any outstanding issues there and then for her [538]. I did not receive any

reply.

47. Our meeting with Hayley Dare took place as planned on 13 September 2013

and it was productive. Sarah Rushton’s handwritten notes of the meeting

appear in the bundle [539]. Hayley Dare was accompanied at the meeting by

her union representative Leanne Brooks, and she confirmed that she had

considered the options and wished to return to her existing clinical psychology

post in the Women’s Service, including returning to her Clinical Lead role.

We discussed the implications and challenges that would face her, and the

support we could put in place to assist, and Hayley Dare confirmed that she

was confident she would be able to return and move forward. We agreed a

return to work date of 23 September 2013, although during that week itself

Hayley Dare advised us that she would be participating in a training event so

that her first day back on site would therefore be 30 September 2013.

11

48. We discussed with Hayley Dare how she would like us communicate her

return from a prolonged absence to staff in the team and we confirmed that

Sarah Rushton would send out an email to the Women’s departmental

management team simply stating that Hayley Dare was returning from leave

on 30 September 2013.

49. In relation to Hayley Dare’s support, it was agreed that she would seek a

mentor within the organisation and that she would also be able to access the

coaching support on offer from Tavistock Consultancy. We agreed that we

would need to give some consideration to the line management arrangements

for her Clinical Lead role and confirmed that we would contact her about that

separately.

50. In the course of our discussion Hayley Dare raised a concern about a

telephone call she had received from David Shelton, her line manager in her

Clinical Psychology role. Hayley Dare told us that he had said that if she

returned to her role within the Women’s Service she would “have a target on

her back”. She made very clear to us that she considered his comment to be

inappropriate and that it had caused her a great deal of distress. I understood

that she wished us to take action to deal with it in some way. I believe that I

then asked Hayley Dare if she wished us to take her concern forward as a

formal grievance and her representative said to her that coming back to work

with a formal grievance process in place against her line manager might not

be the best way to start. Sarah Rushton then suggested mediation as an

alternative and Hayley Dare’s representative said she thought that was a

good idea. Hayley Dare agreed and so I undertook to make arrangements for

mediation to take place.

51. I was subsequently copied into an email dated 16 September 2013 from

Sarah Rushton to Hayley Dare confirming what we had discussed at the

meeting. The email confirmed that an initial meeting would be set up

following her return to work to clarify the line management arrangements for

the Clinical Lead aspect of her role [541]. I was also copied in to various

emails following this, keeping me informed in relation to Hayley Dare’s return

to work.

Paul Meechan

52. I understand that Hayley Dare has complained about Paul Meechan being

asked to join Hayley Dare’s line management structure temporarily.

53. In the course of the investigation into Andy Weir, Hayley Dare had made it

known that she had experienced some difficulty with Claire Dimond (her line

12

manager in her Clinical lead role), who she considered to be on side with

Andy Weir. Having reviewed the concerns set out, we did not consider it

necessary to take formal action at that time, because we believed that the

root of the problem was the overall influence of Andy Weir and that in his

absence steps could be taken to improve the relationship.

54. In addition to Hayley Dare’s concerns, we also recognised that her line

managers were themselves concerned. In discussions that Sarah Rushton

and I had with them in relation to Hayley Dare’s return to work, Claire Dimond

and David Shelton both made clear that they had experienced difficulties in

managing Hayley Dare and that they felt that they needed more support in

place in order to continue doing so. Both Claire Dimond and David Shelton

made comments about Hayley Dare misrepresenting things that they had said

to her and expressed concern about meeting with her on a 1:1 basis.

55. My own experience with Hayley Dare supported her managers’ concerns

about her. I had found her to be difficult to deal with and, as I have set out

above, I had noted that her perception and recollection of events and

meetings had been very different from mine. At this stage I was concerned

that there was a clear pattern of her misrepresenting things that were said to

her. I had also noted that there appeared to be a pattern of behaviour where

she would start to make a complaint and then, when you tried to examine or

explore the issue with her further, she would say that she wasn’t complaining

or would refuse to provide more information.

56. These were concerns that I later understood were shared by Sarah Rushton

from her own short time spent with Hayley Dare and it became apparent that

it was in fact a concern right across the management team. Of most note was

the fact that those who supported Hayley Dare personally confirmed that the

level of support that had been put in place for Hayley Dare by the Trust was

impressive.

57. With all this in mind, when Hayley Dare confirmed that she would be returning

from special leave to her old role, Sarah Rushton and I discussed the best

way to structure her line management. We were of the view that the

relationships were remediable and that it was consistent with the culture

change programme we were implementing to try to improve the working

relationships and to help everyone to move forward in a positive way.

However, we did feel that additional measures should be put in place to assist

that remediation and to ensure that all parties felt protected and supported.

58. In respect of David Shelton, we considered that mediation would be

appropriate to assist both parties in openly discussing their issues and

13

moving on. The issues between them and their personalities were such that I

was confident that mediation was the right approach. We had proposed that

option in our meeting on 13 September and everyone had agreed. We

therefore put in place mediation sessions to assist them and agreed to review

the situation once the mediation had concluded.

59. In respect of Claire Dimond, given the different personality types involved, we

did not feel that mediation was the right approach. We therefore suggested

that we ask another manager to join line management sessions, to provide

support for both parties and to add an independent overview to the

relationship. We agreed that this should be a temporary measure, with a view

to the one to one line management relationship resuming once the

relationship had improved. We also agreed that Paul Meechan was an

appropriate manager to ask to assist. He had joined the Trust in June 2013

and so was completely independent of the historic situation. His role

overlapped with the work of the clinical lead and so from a management

perspective, his input was valuable, and we also felt that his personality would

be a good match.

60. Hayley Dare started to raise objections about Paul Meechan’s involvement in

her line management very early on. She appeared to have a very deep

aversion to him, which I felt was misplaced and unfair.

61. At the time when we asked Paul Meechan to become involved, he had never

met Hayley Dare. He had just started a new, senior role in a new Trust and he

unfortunately stepped into a very difficult and challenging environment.

Despite that, he appeared to respond very positively and he was keen to be a

part of the fresh start and to work with existing members of staff to start to

effect a culture change. Sarah Rushton and I both felt that his approach

would be really valuable in the re-intergration of Hayley Dare.

62. I am aware that Hayley Dare alleges that Paul Meechan is a good friend of

Andy Weir and that his appointment was an attempt to isolate and bully her.

She did raise that with me early on and I made clear to her that I did not

understand that to be the case. I am aware that Paul Meechan and Andy Weir

know each other. I was aware that Paul Meechan had worked as

commissioner of a service that Andy Weir had managed. I now understand

that they had also worked in the same organisation many years ago. The

mental health community within London NHS trusts is small and practitioners

commonly do know one another at that senior level, so this is not unusual.

However, it is my understanding that they are simply old work colleagues and

that they do not have a personal friendship. I genuinely believed that Paul

Meechan was the right person to be involved. I explained all this to Hayley

14

Dare and I reassured her that I believed that Paul Meechan would be of

benefit to the relationship.

63. I believe that Hayley Dare further alleges that Paul Meechan was involved in

the investigation and that he was ‘on Andy Weir’s side’. Again, that is not the

case. I am aware that one or two individuals asked Paul Meechan to be their

accompanying work colleague at the investigatory meeting. Bearing in mind

the number of individuals who were interviewed within the team, that is not

surprising. However, that was the extent of Paul Meechan’s involvement and

his knowledge of the investigation was, I believe, limited to the snapshot that

was discussed in those meetings. He had joined the Trust after Andy Weir

was suspended and so he had no first-hand experience of any of the

situations being investigated and it was because of this that we felt he would

be of value in the line management relationship.

64. When Dr Dare raised her concerns about Paul Meechan’s involvement, I did

talk them through with her and I set out for her the facts. Whilst I wanted to

ensure that we were being supportive and fair to her, aiding her in her return

to work, the objections that she was raising were without foundation and we

genuinely believed that Paul Meechan was the best person for the job. He

was not part of that old management team, is very personable and we felt he

would bring a fresh perspective. We therefore wanted Hayley Dare to give it a

go and to try from the outset to work positively with the new management

team.

Special Leave October 2013

65. I remained in contact with Sarah Rushton about Hayley Dare following her

return to work, as we wanted to ensure that she settled back in smoothly and

that we had the right support in place for her on an on-going basis. However,

on 3 October 2013 I received an email from Sarah informing me that another

member of staff (JB) had found Hayley Dare crying and in a distressed state

in her office [551].

66. In light of this we agreed on a way forward and Sarah Rushton arranged for a

meeting to take place the following week with Hayley Dare. Sarah was due to

be on annual leave and therefore suggested that Hayley Dare should meet

with Claire Dimond (Consultant Psychologist and Clinical Director of

Specialist and Forensic Services) and Paul Meechan and that I should also

attend.

67. On 7 October I received an email from Hayley Dare requesting that I meet

with her alone. At this point it was my understanding that Hayley Dare had

15

been upset because she was generally finding it difficult to settle back into

work and I believed that it was these general issues that we were meeting to

discuss. I had begun to feel that Hayley Dare believed that she had a direct

line to Steve Shrubb and I and that she was using this to try to circumvent line

management arrangements. I did not believe that it was helpful in the long

term to circumvent the normal line management route. I was aware that early

on she had objected to Paul Meechan as a line manager, but I was not aware

of any incident or specific issue and I was keen that she should give that

relationship some time to let it ‘bed in’. I therefore felt that it was important

that her line managers should be at the meeting. They would be able to

provide insight into what was expected of Hayley Dare, if there were any

issues and how things were progressing, and I was clear that they should

also be kept in the loop in terms of the levels of support needed for her.

68. I made this point to Hayley Dare in my reply but she confirmed her clear

preference to meet with me alone [553]. At this point I began to wonder if

Hayley Dare was perhaps having difficulty in her relationship with Claire

Dimond. I therefore responded to her by email and made clear that if she

wanted to discuss concerns about work, her managers were the people to

meet. However, I did say that if she wanted to make a complaint against her

managers or to raise matters that she felt unable to raise with them directly

then I was content to meet with her alone [555]. Hayley Dare did not reply to

this email.

69. On 7 October 2914, Paul Meechan, Claire Dimond and I went to meet with

Hayley Dare as arranged. However, the meeting could not proceed. When

she arrived at the meeting room, she was in an extremely distressed state.

Paul Meechan and I therefore decided to meet with her alone. She was

hunched in a chair, crying. She found it very difficult to communicate with us,

could not maintain any eye contact and spoke in a very quiet voice. We spent

an hour with her trying to understand what the problem was and if there was

anything we could do there and then to assist her, but we were unable to

make any progress. She did say at one point that Paul Meechan frightened

her and we tried to explore that, but she could not articulate why, or what had

caused her to be so upset and so we were unable to reach any view on the

best way forward. Paul Meechan was very patient with her during the meeting

and I felt that he responded appropriately and genuinely to her. However, as

she was so distressed we had to cancel the meeting and we suggested that

she should go home if she needed to. However, Hayley Dare advised that

she wanted to return to work.

70. Following that meeting both Paul Meechan and I were very concerned at

16

Hayley Dare’s wellbeing. We both questioned whether she was well enough

to be at work but agreed to give her some time and to re-assess the situation.

71. On 9 October Sarah Rushton returned from leave and I understand that she

heard about Hayley Dare’s presentation and was extremely concerned about

the clinical risk that could be posed to patients and Hayley Dare if she was

not well. I understand that Claire Dimond was also concerned and they

involved the Trust’s Medical Director to get his view on how to deal with the

issue. Having done so they contacted me to suggest the next step and to ask

my view from an HR perspective.

72. I agreed with the proposed approach of discussing with Hayley Dare the

concerns about her well-being and its potential impact on her ability to safely

be at work. Sarah Rushton, Claire Dimond and Paul Meechan were all

expressing serious concerns to me that Hayley Dare was showing clear signs

that she was not fit for work. My own experience with Hayley Dare over this

period supported their view. We were all concerned for the safety of the

Trust’s patients, and also for Hayley Dare. We did not want her to be working

if she was not well enough to do so and not able to cope with it. Therefore, I

agreed that they should address these concerns with her with a view to her

taking sick leave and being referred to OH. I confirmed my views in an email

to Paul Meechan [560] and I understand that he and Claire Dimond met with

Hayley Dare on 9 October 2013 to have that discussion.

73. I was advised following the meeting that Hayley Dare had agreed to take sick

leave and to await a referral to occupational health. However, I was

subsequently advised that Hayley Dare contacted Paul Meechan to confirm

that neither she nor her GP considered her to be unfit for work and it was

therefore agreed that her leave would be recorded as special leave, on full

pay, until the views of occupational health were obtained.

74. In my view, it was not the case that Hayley Dare was “placed” on special

leave by reason of her making an alleged “protected disclosure” to Steve

Shrubb. The decision was taken and agreed by all four of us because of our

genuine concern for Hayley Dare’s state of well-being and pursuant to the

Trust’s overriding duty to protect its vulnerable mental health patients. Having

seen Hayley Dare myself, I was very concerned that she appeared to be unfit

to work and I believe that it was entirely appropriate to ask her to take some

leave and to attend a review with OH. I would do the same thing in relation to

any member of staff who presented in the way in which Hayley Dare did on

that date. If anything, we were more reluctant to take this approach and more

careful about how we did it than we would be with any other member of staff,

because of the history of the situation.

17

75. I understand that Hayley Dare has suggested that the Trust took the decision

to inform staff that she was off sick at this time as a means of undermining

and humiliating her, and that this was done because she had allegedly made

a “protected disclosure”. That is not the case.

76. At all times we were all extremely anxious to ensure that Hayley Dare was

treated sensitively and in a way that would not cause any damage to her

reputation or any distress to her. At the time the representation was made, we

genuinely felt that this was the most appropriate approach to the situation.

77. Hayley Dare returned to work on 5 November 2013, once OH had provided

confirmation that she was fit to work.

78. I subsequently received a letter dated 8 November 2013, from Janet Ballard

of OH [597]. The letter described ongoing difficulties that Hayley Dare had

told OH she had experienced since her return to work. Dr Ballard expressed

concern that Hayley Dare felt unable to express her difficulties to

management and it was Dr Ballard’s suggestion to Hayley Dare that she

therefore attempted to do so by contacting me. I was concerned to note that

according to Dr Ballard, Hayley Dare felt that she was experiencing subtle but

unpleasant behaviour from some colleagues, who she felt had been

supportive of Andy Weir and were targeting her because of her part in the

investigation against him.

79. At this time I was, of course, concerned about the issues being raised by Dr

Ballard. However, I was conscious that Dr Ballard was simply reporting what

she had been told, without any first-hand knowledge of the situation which

would enable her to properly weigh up both sides of the issue. Secondly, the

letter from Dr Ballard did not in fact provide us with any specifics or details of

who or what was involved, which would have enabled us to begin an

investigation or take more formal steps to address issues. By this time we had

received a number of indications from Hayley Dare that she was finding her

return to work more difficult than she had expected. However, despite

encouragement from us, and invitations from myself and Sarah Rushton to

meet with us if she had any particular concerns about her line managers,

Hayley Dare had not actually raised any specific complaints about anyone.

80. I did note with some comfort that the letter confirmed that Hayley Dare felt

that with all of the support that she was receiving, both from the Trust and

personally, she was strong enough to manage the situation. I believed that

the support that was being referred to was that which had been put in place

by Sarah Rushton and myself. Therefore, I considered that we should

18

continue to try to move forward, encouraging Hayley Dare to work positively

with her line managers and to engage with the appropriate reporting lines

within the Trust, and providing support and open lines of communication so

that she could come to us if she needed anything or had concerns.

Investigation of allegations against Andy Weir

81. I understand that Hayley Dare has alleged that the Trust failed to properly

investigate the concerns that were raised about Andy Weir, or to inform her of

the outcome of the investigation. I absolutely deny that this was the case.

82. The Trust took the allegations in relation to Andy Weir extremely seriously.

They were dealt with at the highest level and Steve Shrubb was very clear

that proper process must be followed. We appointed an experienced,

independent employment law specialist to conduct a thorough investigation

on the Trust’s behalf and a large number of staff members were involved in

the investigation and supported through it. Mr Weir was excluded and

ultimately left the organisation. I do not believe that it could have been treated

any more seriously.

83. I do accept that there was some delay in providing the investigation report to

all those who had raised concerns. However, there were very good reasons

for this. Firstly, following the issue of the anonymous letter, the police became

involved and a formal, criminal investigation was launched. We were not

permitted to take any steps internally that might have prejudiced that

investigation or any proceedings that might have followed. Only once the

police had decided not to take any further steps were we in a position to

determine how to take matters forward internally.

84. Even then, we did not consider that it was appropriate to release the report

until the matter had reached its conclusion. That did not happen until the

decision was formally taken that Andy Weir would be leaving the Trust in

March 2014. Bearing in mind that the matter could have proceeded through a

formal disciplinary process, it would not have been proper to have shared the

details of that with staff members before a decision was taken. In addition,

once a decision had been taken as to how to proceed, steps needed to be

taken to determine what information should be released. The report contained

detailed information about a large number of individuals, and numerous

appendices. We have a duty of confidentiality to all staff and so each

complainant was provided only with the information specific to their part of the

complaint.

19

85. Whilst I appreciate that this was frustrating for Hayley Dare, and her

colleagues, this was consistent with the approach that we take in all cases

and I believe that it was the correct one in the circumstances of this case.

86. It should also be noted that notwithstanding the fact that the formal report

could not be shared, in October 2013 Steve Shrubb did offer every one of the

complainants the opportunity to meet with him in person to discuss the

progress of the investigation and its broad conclusions. That opportunity was

offered to Hayley Dare and she did not take it up.

Hayley Dare being identified as the ‘whistleblower’.

87. I understand that Hayley Dare alleges that she was subjected to a detriment

by reason of her being a ‘whistleblower’ because she was revealed to Andy

Weir as the ‘whistleblower’ who had instigated the investigation against him.

88. First, it must be noted that Hayley Dare was only one of a number of

individuals who came forward to complain about Andy Weir. It will be noted

from the investigation report that a lot of staff were interviewed and many of

them listed complaints about him.

89. In any event, I do not believe that Andy Weir was ever formally told that

Hayley Dare had raised complaints against him and he was not told that she

had been the cause of the investigation, because that was not true. It is

inevitable, from the very detailed and specific questions that he was asked in

the course of the investigation, that Andy Weir would have been in a position

to speculate about who might have complained. It is human nature that he

would have done so. However, we did everything that we could to support all

the complainants in that respect, including Hayley Dare, and Andy Weir was

suspended from work throughout the investigation in order to protect the staff

who were involved.

90. The identities of those who had raised complaints about Andy Weir have

never been made public within the Trust. Many members of the team in the

Specialist and Forensic Services, including senior managers, still do not know

the identity of some of those who came forward and raised their concerns.

Some have been very open about it and others have chosen not to. We have

respected the choice of each individual in that situation. Of course, there has

been speculation about who was involved and it is an issue that has been

discussed in a department that was hugely affected by the investigation and

its outcome. Hayley Dare is, I accept, at the centre of that speculation.

However, I understand that to be because of her very vocal and open

criticism and dislike of Andy Weir over a prolonged period of time. It is not

20

because of any action taken by the Trust to reveal her as a ‘whistleblower’.

Exclusion from Board Visits/meetings about the transfer of Pearl Ward

91. I am aware that Hayley Dare has alleged that she was excluded from Board

visits to wards and from meetings about the transfer of Pearl Ward and that

her exclusion is a result of her having ‘blown the whistle’. I was not directly

involved in the arrangements for any of these visits or meetings. However, I

can comment generally on how they are arranged and their purpose.

92. In terms of Board visits to wards, which I go on myself, the expectation is that

they are arranged locally by managers on the wards. Their purpose is to

enable members of the Trust Board to meet the staff working day to day on

each ward, and their patients, to talk about what is happening on the ground. I

would not necessarily expect the Clinical Lead to be involved in the

arrangement for a visit or to attend a visit.

93. In relation to meetings about the transfer of a ward, there are a number of

issues which arise when you transfer a ward. There are obviously clinical

issues associated with moving patients and deciding where they will go and

how they should be cared for. However, there are also practical issues to be

determined, such as actually physically moving things on a specific date, and

HR issues, such as transferring staff to work in a different area and potentially

changing shifts.

94. I agree that it is appropriate and necessary for the Clinical Lead to be

involved in discussions and meetings about the clinical impact of transferring

a ward. However, they would not be involved or invited to meetings about the

transfer of staff, for example. That would be an issue for HR, the staff

themselves and the managers of the ward staff. The Clinical Lead does not

have any responsibility for those areas and so they are issues that simply do

not require the involvement of a Clinical Lead.

Hayley Dare being job planned

95. In relation to job planning, I can confirm that within the NHS all doctors are

supposed to be job planned on an annual basis. I accept that does not

happen in every case every year as it should. However, the majority of our

doctors are job planned.

96. In relation to non-medics who do clinical roles, we encourage them to use

similar principles, because it is a very useful tool for managers and for staff. It

is a practice that has been used in the Trust for non-medics and in a role

such as Hayley Dare’s, which is split, it is absolutely appropriate that it be

21

used to help to define the working week.

Return to Work November 2013

97. Following Hayley Dare’s return to work from special leave on 5 November

2013, again I maintained contact with Sarah Rushton in order to monitor her

progress and ensure that we were alive to any further issues.

98. I am aware that Hayley Dare met with Sarah Rushton on 13 December 2013

and advised her that she felt that she was being bullied and was unhappy. I

understand that Sarah Rushton tried to get some detail from Hayley Dare

about what was happening and why she felt this way, so that we could take

some formal steps. However, Sarah told me that Hayley Dare felt unable to

deal with it at that point and she then commenced a period of annual leave

which was followed immediately by sickness absence.

99. I have continued to advise Sarah Rushton, and her successor in post, on the

management of Hayley Dare during her absence.

100. Hayley Dare has not returned to work. She remained absent on sick leave

until June 2014, when she asked to be made redundant. She made the

request in the course of a consultation under which a number of Band 8C

Psychologist posts were to be made redundant. As a result of the amount of

money involved (It is proposed that Hayley Dare is to receive a contractual

redundancy payment of £118,718), the Trust is required to obtain the

approval of the Trust Development Authority for her redundancy. That

approval has been obtained and her employment with the Trust therefore

terminated by reason of redundancy on 12 September 2014. Three others

were also dismissed by reason of redundancy through the same process.

Transcripts of Meetings

101. One final point that I wish to address in my witness statement is a matter that

came to light in the course of these proceedings.

102. On 30 May 2014, we were provided with information by solicitors representing

Hayley Dare which confirmed that she had been routinely and covertly

recording meetings held at the Trust. She did so without the knowledge of any

of the individuals who were in the meetings and had been doing so over a

prolonged period of time.

103. The covert recording of meetings is a practice which is forbidden in the Trust

and, if it came to light, would normally be treated as a serious disciplinary

22

issue. It is generally recognised as an unpleasant practice which seriously

undermines the relationship of trust and confidence between members of staff

in any event. However, it is particularly serious in NHS trusts where patient

identifiable information is discussed frequently and the recording and storage

of that information outside the Trust’s formal processes would be a serious

breach of confidentiality.

104. In the circumstances of Hayley Dare’s case, where this all took place in the

midst of what we recognised was a very difficult period for her, we did not

consider that disciplinary action would be a helpful way forward. However, we

did consider that it was necessary to notify Hayley Dare of the seriousness of

her actions and to ensure that she was aware that it was not an acceptable

practice for the future. My colleague, Leeanne McGee (who replaced Sarah

Rushton) sent her a letter about this issue and others related matters on 1

July 2014 [871-872].

105. In the course of recording her meetings, Hayley Dare had recorded one

particular meeting that she attended on 5 March 2014, with myself and Steve

Shrubb [775-792]. Whilst that meeting post-dates Hayley Dare’s claim and is

not strictly relevant, I wish to address it in this statement because I consider

that it is demonstrative of her behaviour throughout this period of time.

106. I had been given the impression throughout my dealings with Hayley Dare

that Steve Shrubb and I were members of the management team that she

trusted. She had come to us with sensitive information and had asked for our

advice and support when she said she felt there was no one else she could

go to. She had repeatedly thanked us for our support and we had always

reached an agreed way forward at every step of the process. I was not aware

of any circumstance, issue or event that would lead Hayley Dare to feel it

necessary or appropriate to record her meeting with us.

107. It should be noted that the meeting was one that was requested on behalf of

Hayley Dare as a ‘without prejudice’ meeting. In my mind, this meant that the

meeting was even more private than an ordinary management meeting. This

gave me the impression that we were all there to speak freely and without

fear of recrimination. To find out subsequently that Hayley Dare came to that

meeting that she had requested and that she recorded it without our

knowledge, was very upsetting. To note in particular that she then proceeded

to record a private conversation between Steve Shrubb and I, whilst she and

her representative was out of the room, demonstrated in my mind that Hayley

Dare orchestrated the whole event in an effort to bolster her position in this

claim.

23

108. I accept that I did make comments in my private conversation with Steve

Shrubb that I would not have wished Hayley Dare or anyone else to hear. The

meeting with Hayley Dare was one that Steve Shrubb and I expected to be

difficult. She had become increasingly challenging and difficult to manage in

the period until her sick leave and she had lodged a claim against the Trust in

the Employment Tribunal. We expected the meeting to be unpleasant and

confrontational and we had geared ourselves up for that. The private

moments that were recorded were Steve Shrubb and I debriefing from that

meeting, relaxing and letting off some of the tension that had built up. The

comments that we made must be considered in that context.

109. I very much wish that Hayley Dare had not heard our comments and I regret

making them. However, I do believe that I am entitled to have private

conversations and to hold a view and I believe that it is the way that I acted

towards Hayley Dare in her employment with the Trust that should be judged

and not a few throwaway comments made in the midst of a difficult meeting. If

I am judged on those actions, it can be seen that at all times I took steps to

provide support to Hayley Dare and that I worked hard with her and her

colleagues to try to bring her back to work and to repair some of the damage

that had been done during a difficult process.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Signed…………………………………………….. Dated………………………………………………