[2024] UKUT 171 (AAC)

RR had very little warning of the hearing and was given no notice of what it was about. We note that the hearing began with WF asking RR twice if he knew what had been alleged about him. We do not know exactly what RR was eventually told, as the record is not verbatim. It seems that the meeting focused on the telephone numbers, so it may not have mentioned the other matters in KK’s statement and DBS’s findings. We do know that RR had realised in advance that the meeting might be about telephone numbers and had researched this online. But we only know this because he told Ms Hartley in cross-examination.

According to the LADO record CM and WF found that RR’s answers were inconsistent, vague and incongruous. Those criticisms were not particularised. We take a more charitable view of what RR was saying. We have the benefit of hearing his account when he was aware of the precise details of KK’s allegation and was able to present it without the pressure of the disciplinary hearing. What he told us is consistent with his answers on 1 July. Any vagueness or incongruity came from having to respond at very short notice to precise allegations. What he was trying to say was this:

Having heard RR’s evidence, the obvious question is: why did he not tell CM and WF that he gave KK his number because she asked for it? That is easy to ask in hindsight. But it is important to take account of the context. The whole meeting lasted for 15 minutes. RR had no advance warning of what the meeting was about, although he worked out that it had something to do with telephone numbers. The meeting began with a cat and mouse game in which WF tried to get RR to tell him what he thought the meeting was about. That start was not conducive to a clear mind during the questioning. There followed an exchange in which RR and WF appear not to have fully understood what the other was saying. With the benefit of RR’s account, it is possible to understand the significance that RR attached to lack of contact. WF on the other hand was only interested in whether RR gave KK his number. RR’s attempt to explain was interpreted as contradiction and an attempt to defend his action. The meeting concluded with an explanation of what would happen next. All within 15 minutes.

It is worth comparing the hearing notes with RR’s resignation email. It was sent an hour after the hearing ended and puts his point coherently. It is still not the full account that he gave to us. But the contrast between the clarity when he has time to collect his thoughts and his responses to questions under pressure is significant.