|
Archived Transcript for 22 November 2001:
Pages 51 to 100
51
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: And yet you say you never conducted a joint 47
3 investigation?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not up until the point that I was
5 allocated Victoria's case, no.
6 MR GARNHAM: Or an investigation involving a child in
7 hospital?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Nor a full investigation by yourself?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Even though half of your work was child
12 protection?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: I am sure it is a lack of understanding on my
15 part but that does sound odd, that you managed to do
16 that work on child protection and yet never do any of
17 those types of procedures.
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I remember attending lots of strategy
19 meetings whilst I was on duty as the Duty social worker,
20 but the cases that were allocated to me did not include
21 joint investigations with the police. I do remember
22 having a case of sexual abuse where there had been
23 a strategy meeting held and I was to do the assessment
24 by myself.
25 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you a little more about the Orange
52
1 Book please which I referred you to. The Orange Book is
2 the guide for social workers undertaking comprehensive
3 assessment, is it not?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: We have it in volume 27. Perhaps you could see
6 that, please, at 217.573. You say in paragraph 40 of
7 your statement that you had not been trained in the use
8 of this book.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The Orange Book was something that was
10 referred to in my training and I did refer to the Orange
11 Book whilst I was training to be a social worker. Since
12 qualifying as a social worker I had never seen the
13 Orange Book in practice. I had never used the Orange
14 Book at Hammersmith and Fulham and it was definitely not
15 used in the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team in
16 Haringey although I did know that it was used by social
17 workers in the Long Term Teams.
18 MR GARNHAM: Is it right to say, as you say in your
19 statement:
20 "I had not been trained in using the Orange Book"?
21 It sounds as if you were trained.
22 "I had not been trained in using the Orange Book."
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not receive any formal training in
24 the Orange Book but certainly when I was undertaking my
25 training at Luton my practice teacher referred me to the
53
1 Orange Book and I used the Orange Book to guide me in my
2 assessments.
3 MR GARNHAM: You attended a three-day course you told us or
4 a two-day course in comprehensive assessment in child
5 protection.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe the comprehensive assessment
7 in child protection was three days actually, yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: That must surely have covered a guide for
9 social workers undertaking comprehensive assessments.
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct. At the time
11 I completed that training it was my intention to move to
12 the long-term. I wanted to do long-term work because
13 I wanted to be able to carry out comprehensive
14 assessments. I felt that the assessments that were
15 being carried out in the Duty Investigation and
16 Assessment Team were not comprehensive.
17 MR GARNHAM: But all I am looking at at the moment is your
18 assertion that you were not trained in using the Orange
19 Book and I am suggesting that you must have been since
20 you went on a course precisely to cover that ground.
21 I understand you to say you were not using it regularly
22 during the course of your work, I understand that point
23 of evidence, but it must be the case, must it not, that
24 you were trained in its use if for no other reason than
25 you went on a training course dealing with that subject?
54
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: In any event you tell us that you did not use
3 the Orange Book during the course of your work on
4 Victoria's case.
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And you say also that you were not or you did
7 not refer to any other procedural guides during the
8 course of that work, is that right?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Apart from the Duty Investigation and
10 Assessment Team procedures.
11 MR GARNHAM: Were you ever directed to use the Orange Book
12 or any of the other manuals by your managers?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I was actually told that the Orange Book
14 was a book that was not to be used by social workers in
15 the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team.
16 MR GARNHAM: Who told you that?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe this came from Angella Mairs
18 although I cannot be sure but certainly social workers
19 had been given the impression, were told that the Orange
20 Book was only to be used by social workers in the Long
21 Term Team and that social workers in the Duty
22 Investigation and Assessment Team were not to use the
23 Orange Book, it was not used.
24 MR GARNHAM: Why was that? What was the reason for that,
25 did you understand?
55
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not understand, no.
2 MR GARNHAM: Presumably it reflected the difference, did it,
3 between initial assessment and subsequent assessments?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Perhaps, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: But do you understand the Orange Book from the
6 training you had in it as being restricted only to later
7 assessments rather than initial assessments?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
9 MR GARNHAM: It is applicable to all of them, is it not?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did you not raise this assertion, did you not
12 question this assertion from Miss Mairs or whoever it
13 was about that? It just seems to run contrary to all
14 your training.
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not raise it with Angella Mairs
16 specifically, no.
17 MR GARNHAM: Before I leave this subject and before I invite
18 the Chairman to give us both a break, I wonder if
19 I could ask you to look at one more document,
20 volume 45A, page 150.529. This is a document entitled
21 "Report of the Investigation into the Professional
22 Conduct of the Officers of the London Borough of
23 Haringey Housing and Social Services Department involved
24 in the case of Victoria Climbie." Have you seen this
25 document before?
56
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have.
2 MR GARNHAM: I may need to take you to it several times, but
3 for present purposes will you turn to page .558 please.
4 Paragraph 6.4.2, this is Mr Monaghan's conclusion in
5 relation to training and I want to ask whether you agree
6 or disagree.
7 "6.42.2. I would conclude that all the staff
8 directly concerned with the Victoria Climbie case had
9 received appropriate training to equip them to deal with
10 the practice matters that arose during their
11 involvement. I found no basis to believe that a lack of
12 appropriate training of staff was a contributing
13 factor."
14 Your views please. Do you agree or disagree in your
15 case? Let me break it up further. In your case do you
16 think you had in general adequate training for your job?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: In order to answer that question could
18 I have a look at my training courses because I am not
19 sure when I undertook the comprehensive ...
20 MR GARNHAM: Volume 29 page 22. Is that the list you had in
21 mind?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is, yes, and I see by that list, from
23 that list that I did attend the comprehensive assessment
24 in child protection in March 1999.
25 MR GARNHAM: So can I ask you the question again? Do you
57
1 agree that you had had by the time we get to June 1999
2 adequate training?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not believe so, no.
4 MR GARNHAM: In what respects do you say it was deficient?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I think it was more to do with my
6 experience.
7 MR GARNHAM: They are two different things. Training first
8 of all. Do you say your training was inadequate and if
9 so how?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not believe the training was
11 inadequate. But I just believe that there was just too
12 much work to be carried out.
13 MR GARNHAM: All right, thank you. It must follow from
14 that, must it not, that the adequacy of training is not
15 relevant to Victoria's case in your conduct of it?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: Sir would that be a convenient moment for
18 a short break?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham. We will have a break.
20 You are not allowed to discuss your evidence with
21 anyone and that includes your advocate. We will adjourn
22 but be back at 5 to 12.
23 (11.45 am)
24 (A short break)
25 (11.55 am)
58
1 MR GARNHAM: It may be that we need to do something about
2 the clock in your retiring room. You are always very
3 punctual back and some of us are less so.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes Mr Garnham.
5 MR GARNHAM: I am told that Miss Arthurworrey is coming.
6 Miss Arthurworrey we will try and give you the
7 breaks you need but it is quite important that you are
8 back on time.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Sorry.
10 MR GARNHAM: We were talking about the Orange Book before we
11 broke. Just two further questions I want to ask you
12 about that. The first is this. Would you agree with me
13 that its use in an initial assessment as opposed to
14 final assessments is much more as a reference book,
15 something to which you, if you were using it properly,
16 will have resort to to understand the way in which the
17 process should be carried out, rather than asking that
18 for those sort of assessments you would apply as of
19 rote?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I agree with that, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Do you also agree that although you tell us
22 that Haringey did not refer you back to that book during
23 the course of your work on Victoria's case that you had
24 available to you some pro formas devised by Haringey to
25 assist you in the way you went about the assessment
59
1 task? Can I show you them to see if it helps?
2 Volume 27 please, page 124. "Initial Assessment Pack"
3 it is called.
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
5 MR GARNHAM: This is familiar to you?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is.
7 MR GARNHAM: And it is something that you had for your use
8 whilst you were at Haringey.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
10 MR GARNHAM: And page 85 a similar pack for use when you are
11 carrying out other assessments.
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have never actually seen this pack in
13 the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team.
14 MR GARNHAM: It was the first one I showed you that you used
15 for Victoria's case.
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: And you say you have not seen the second one
18 I have shown you?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not in our team, no.
20 MR GARNHAM: The first one you had though was useful in that
21 it set out a series of things you should do and guided
22 you through the process.
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: Can I take you up to July 1999, immediately
25 before your involvement with Victoria. The team of
60
1 which you were a member raised a number of concerns
2 about the quality of management and we have looked at
3 the document. Will you have a look at 29.052 again
4 please. Do you remember we looked at these in relation
5 to Miss Baptiste's availability and attendance?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: That was one of the two matters that were
8 raised here and I want to ask you about the other.
9 Before I do so though, can you tell us how it came about
10 that there was this meeting?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The team had been experiencing problems
12 with Carole's availability and I have already mentioned
13 that I think it impacted on myself more than other
14 members of the team. The reason why we decided to call
15 this meeting was because there was a conflict between
16 two members of staff which later escalated to involve
17 lots of members of the team.
18 MR GARNHAM: Who were the two members of staff first of all?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The two members of the team were John
20 Myrie and Roma Rayburn.
21 MR GARNHAM: And the nature of the conflict?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was to do with inappropriate language
23 being used in the team.
24 MR GARNHAM: Sexual?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not sexual, no.
61
1 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what it was then.
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was to do with -- John Myrie felt
3 that -- I think the problem first arose after the SSI
4 Inspectorate came and there was difficulties when the
5 Inspectorate came. Social workers were asked to meet
6 with the inspectors and some social workers felt that
7 their views were not being heard.
8 MR GARNHAM: What was the language that you said was
9 inappropriate? I want to get an understanding of what
10 was the problem that led to this meeting.
11 Miss Arthurworrey, you realise you have undertaken an
12 oath to tell us the truth, the whole truth and I want
13 the whole truth please.
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Okay, it was to do with John Myrie
15 making comments about obia practices.
16 MR GARNHAM: What does that mean?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Witchcraft, black magic, and it offended
18 Roma Rayburn, who then went to speak to Carole Baptiste
19 about this problem. The problem was allowed to escalate
20 because instead of Angella Mairs taking this up with the
21 two members of staff involved, what actually happened
22 was that this problem was raised in the forum of a team
23 meeting and this just allowed other members to become
24 involved and the problem just escalated.
25 MR GARNHAM: How did that lead to the meeting of 5th July?
62
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do remember one evening
2 Carole Baptiste came and spoke to me about the problems
3 in the team and she was citing behaviour that I did not
4 think was going on in the team. She thought that
5 members of the team were bullying Roma Rayburn and as
6 a result Roma actually left the B Team and moved into
7 the A Team. I felt that I was put in a very difficult
8 situation because Carole spoke to me one evening when
9 I was in the office by myself. She was citing bullying
10 behaviour. She said that she was disappointed with the
11 team and she said that she was disappointed with me in
12 particular.
13 I tried to explain that the behaviour that she was
14 describing was not happening in the team. Carole was
15 not interested in discussing with me this further.
16 I was then in a predicament as to whether or not to
17 discuss what Carole Baptiste had said to me to the other
18 members of the team. I decided that I needed to because
19 I think the allegations that she was making were quite
20 serious allegations and if that type of behaviour was
21 going on in the team then it needed to be addressed. So
22 I spoke to the rest of the team and the problem with
23 Roma continued. Carole Baptiste tried to resolve the
24 problem by having what she called group supervisions.
25 Now, this effectively meant that we would, the B Team
63
1 would meet up at lunchtime to discuss team issues.
2 MR GARNHAM: And was the matter you have discussed with
3 regard to Roma discussed at those meetings?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Well the whole problem with that was
5 that Roma was not present at those meetings. She
6 decided that she was not going to attend.
7 MR GARNHAM: Was it that that led to the meeting of
8 5th July?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it was.
10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
11 One of the things you discussed at the meeting of
12 5th July was the allocation system.
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
14 MR GARNHAM: You set out your concerns in paragraph 51 of
15 your statement and the matter was discussed in the
16 minutes. Have 51 in front of you. The instance that is
17 given of this problem with allocation concerns a case or
18 cases allocated to members of staff who were on leave.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: I am afraid the microphone is not picking up
21 Miss Arthurworrey's voice. It will now.
22 It referred to a case or cases allocated to a social
23 worker who was on leave. Is that right?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: A case was allocated to a social worker
25 who was on leave, yes.
64
1 MR GARNHAM: Can you have volume 45A again please, 150.682.
2 It is a statement by Mr Myrie, the gentleman you refer
3 to, for the purposes of the investigation we have
4 already looked at by Mr Monaghan. Mr Myrie says in
5 that:
6 "I was away on two weeks leave and I came back to
7 find a case had been allocated to me whilst I was on
8 annual leave. The case had been put in my drawer with
9 the other 19 cases and it was two weeks before
10 I discovered it."
11 Is that the one you are referring to?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is the one that is being referred
13 to in this meeting, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Was that a single isolated instance of this
15 sort of thing happening with allocation?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, it was not. I do remember a case
17 that I had. It was the same Section 7 report that
18 I have referred to which I was given when I first
19 started at Haringey. I had taken the report to court
20 with my recommendations and the court had agreed with my
21 recommendations and the case was therefore low priority.
22 I therefore had the case at the back of my drawer
23 pending me completing the closing papers, my closing
24 summary. That case had been -- that case was low
25 priority and it was in the back of my drawer from
65
1 about May. That is when I went to court.
2 I do remember going on annual leave in June 1999.
3 I do remember some time in August/September perhaps
4 going through my case load, going through my drawer to
5 have a look at my cases and I saw this particular case
6 which was at the back of my drawer and I just pulled it
7 out just to have a look and there was a referral
8 regarding sexual abuse on that case.
9 MR GARNHAM: On that case?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: On that case.
11 MR GARNHAM: And you did not know about that?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not know about it.
13 MR GARNHAM: That is another instance of this problem of
14 referrals being made to people when they did not know
15 about it.
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: And it is right to say I think that Victoria's
18 case was allocated to you when you were away and you
19 discovered it two days later?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Victoria's case was allocated to me on
21 Monday 2nd August. Victoria's case had been referred to
22 the department the week before. That week was not my
23 Duty week. What usually happened at the end of the Duty
24 week was that managers would sit down and discuss the
25 cases that needed further work and to discuss who they
66
1 would be allocated to so I believe that that discussion
2 would have taken place on Friday the 30th and then
3 I found the case on my desk Monday the 2nd.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you feel that the meeting the minutes of
5 which we have looked at, at page 502 in volume 29,
6 produced a solution to this problem of allocating cases?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Social workers would often have have
8 regular discussions about the way cases were allocated.
9 These discussions would take place in team meetings.
10 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, I am going to interrupt you simply
11 because I want to try and focus your answers a little
12 more if I may. The question of allocation of cases was
13 addressed in the meeting in these minutes, do you agree?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes I agree.
15 MR GARNHAM: After those minutes did you feel the problem
16 was solved?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, it was not solved.
18 MR GARNHAM: Is Victoria's case an instance of that, or not?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Victoria's case is an instance of that.
20 MR GARNHAM: Were there other instances where you felt the
21 allocation system was not working properly?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: There were other cases, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: And do I take it from what you have said that
24 the deficiency is that they are allocated without the
25 worker being aware of it?
67
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: They are allocated without the worker
2 being aware of it, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Let me turn to supervision during
4 the year with which we are concerned. You say that you
5 had four supervisors during that period, is that right?
6 I am sorry, four supervisions, three supervisors.
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: You had one supervision with Carole Baptiste?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
10 MR GARNHAM: One with Angella Mairs?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
12 MR GARNHAM: And two with Rose Kozinos?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: That is during the course of the period
15 from August until February, a period of about six
16 months.
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Were you having other supervisions apart from
19 those four that you have referred to during that
20 six-month period?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
22 MR GARNHAM: So you had four in six months?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: How frequently did you understand you should be
25 having supervision meetings?
68
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I understood that supervision meetings
2 should take place once every two to three weeks.
3 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that Victoria's case was mentioned
4 at all four of those supervisions.
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: Are you confident that you brought it up in the
7 discussion that you had, the supervision you had with
8 Angella Mairs?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I am confident, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: You remember specifically discussing that
11 particular case with Ms Mairs, do you?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do remember discussing Victoria's case
13 with Angella Mairs, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you to have a look at one of the
15 notes arising from these supervisions, volume 29,
16 please, page 44/535. That I think is part of the notes
17 of one supervision that you had, is that right?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Have you seen this document before?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: This is a supervision with who, please?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: This is a supervision with
23 Carole Baptiste.
24 MR GARNHAM: And it refers to Victoria's case?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It does refer to Victoria's case.
69
1 MR GARNHAM: And it took place on 20th September?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: We have there eight lines of notes on that
4 case.
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: (Nods).
6 MR GARNHAM: Does that represent the totality of the
7 discussion you had with Miss Baptiste about Victoria's
8 case that day?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: On that day, yes, although I had
10 discussed Victoria's case with Carole Baptiste.
11 MR GARNHAM: Previously?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Previously.
13 MR GARNHAM: I will come to them in detail. I am just
14 trying to get a feel of the supervision system. Who
15 would bring up a case during one of your supervision
16 meetings?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It would be the social worker.
18 MR GARNHAM: So you would bring it up. Would you work
19 methodically through every one of your cases that you
20 had on your books at the time?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would basically identify the cases
22 that I felt that I needed to discuss with my manager.
23 MR GARNHAM: So does that mean you would not discuss all
24 your cases at each supervision?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
70
1 MR GARNHAM: Did the supervisor ever bring up cases to ask
2 you about? Did she ever take the initiative?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
4 MR GARNHAM: Is that answer applicable just to Ms Baptiste
5 or does that apply to the other two supervisors you had?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Unfortunately I only had one supervision
7 session with Rose and Angella and I do remember those
8 supervision sessions being one way discussions. It was
9 me telling them what was happening in the case and then
10 I was just handed out actions.
11 MR GARNHAM: So they would listen to your description of
12 what was happening in the case and would then tell you
13 things to do?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Was that satisfactory?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No it was not satisfactory.
17 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Because my understanding of supervision
19 was that was the forum to discuss cases in detail with
20 the objective of planning appropriate action.
21 MR GARNHAM: You answered that question by reference to
22 Mairs and Kozinos. What about your supervisions with
23 Baptiste? Were they two-way discussions?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The supervisions with Carole Baptiste
25 were two-way discussions. There were more discussions
71
1 in the supervision sessions with Carole, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Discussions about the case?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Discussions about the case as well as
4 other things.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard the supervisions you had with
6 Ms Baptiste as satisfactory?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I found the supervision sessions that
8 I had with Ms Baptiste a little bit frustrating.
9 MR GARNHAM: Why?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: First of all there was a problem in when
11 the supervisions were arranged. More often than not
12 they would have to be rescheduled because of her lack of
13 availability.
14 MR GARNHAM: Once you got to a supervision with her, once
15 she was there and talking to you, was the supervision
16 then satisfactory?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Sometimes it was, sometimes it was not.
18 Sometimes we would start discussing cases and then
19 Carole would somehow go off on a tangent and we would
20 end up talking about her.
21 MR GARNHAM: Talking about Ms Baptiste?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right.
23 MR GARNHAM: This is during the course of your six-weekly or
24 so supervisions?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
72
1 MR GARNHAM: What was the relevance of talking about
2 Ms Baptiste in that context?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Ms Baptiste always used or most of the
4 time used to talk about her experiences as a black woman
5 and her relationship with God.
6 MR GARNHAM: With God. What proportion of the supervisions
7 are taken up with talking about cases and talking about
8 her experiences as a black woman or her experiences with
9 God?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: From memory I remember supervision
11 sessions that would either start with her discussing her
12 experiences as a black woman and her relationship with
13 God, then would get on to discuss the cases but then
14 would not have time to finish discussing the cases
15 because most of the session had been spent up talking
16 about other things.
17 MR GARNHAM: Please finish.
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Therefore sessions had to be
19 rescheduled. In the sessions where we were focusing on
20 cases, more times than not Carole would go off on
21 tangents and --
22 MR GARNHAM: Tangents of the sort you have described?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: How long were these supervisions supposed to
25 last?
73
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would say about one and a half hours.
2 MR GARNHAM: What proportion would be spent talking about
3 cases?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Very little.
5 MR GARNHAM: Well, an hour, five minutes?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: A bit more than that. I would say about
7 half an hour, although I do not really remember but I do
8 know that often supervision sessions would have to be
9 rescheduled.
10 MR GARNHAM: Because she had not finished the business in
11 hand?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
13 MR GARNHAM: So out of the hour and a half session you would
14 have half an hour or so talking about the cases and an
15 hour talking about God or her experience as a black
16 woman?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That was my experience of supervision.
18 MR GARNHAM: That does not sound entirely satisfactory.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was not.
20 MR GARNHAM: What did you do about it?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did nothing. I just tried to manage.
22 MR GARNHAM: Looking at the whole of the supervision you had
23 from those three supervisors and the four supervision
24 sessions, was there ever a systematic evaluation of the
25 way you were handling Victoria's case?
74
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, there was not.
2 MR GARNHAM: To your knowledge did any of those three
3 managers ever read through the file from cover to cover?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not in my presence, no.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever receive constructive criticism
6 about the way in which you were managing Victoria's
7 case?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever in any of the four supervisions
10 receive more than instructions for actions thereafter?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever get told, "You are going about
13 this the wrong way Lisa"?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did they ever say, "You are missing things"?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No they did not.
17 MR GARNHAM: Would these three managers -- and if you would
18 rather deal with them separately we will do so, and
19 perhaps that would be fairer on them. Let us take
20 Ms Baptiste first. Would Ms Baptiste in the course of
21 the supervisions she had with you ever put in any ideas
22 of her own?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Sometimes I remember she could be very
24 helpful but more often than not it was me telling her my
25 opinions of the case and she just accepted it.
75
1 MR GARNHAM: She would just agree with you?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: She would just agree with me.
3 MR GARNHAM: Can you have the Monaghan report, volume 45A,
4 page 150.682. Again we are back to the statement of
5 Mr Myrie, he is discussing at paragraphs 1 and 2
6 Carole Baptiste's team, and in the third paragraph he
7 says this:
8 "In my presence she would not look at the files
9 I took into supervision sessions."
10 Did you have a similar experience or was yours
11 different?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I had a similar experience.
13 MR GARNHAM: "More often than not the files would remain on
14 her floor and might come back to you a few days later
15 with supervision notes."
16 Same or different?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Mine was different.
18 MR GARNHAM: In what way?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Because I would always have the files
20 that I was talking about on my knee opened and
21 Carole Baptiste would make supervision notes and give me
22 them.
23 MR GARNHAM: Then and there?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: "The style of the supervision was bizarre and
76
1 passive. I would go in and say what I had intended
2 doing based on my experience. It felt like a production
3 line. If I went in and said I was going to do A,B and
4 C, I would get the file back with ABC written on it and
5 a deadline with which I had already supplied her. There
6 was no cross-examination or any appreciation of the need
7 to cross-examine."
8 Similar experience or different?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Similar experience.
10 MR GARNHAM: Turn on two pages in that document, please.
11 Fourth paragraph from the top:
12 "Carole Baptiste saw Lisa Arthurworrey as
13 a protegee."
14 Did you see, did you feel that was how she saw you?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe so, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: "Lisa Arthurworrey found this deskilling."
17 Did you?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I was a new learner and I was looking
19 for the guidance.
20 MR GARNHAM: Did you find it deskilling?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I found it deskilling in the sense that
22 I thought there was an issue with Carole Baptiste's
23 knowledge base, so that she was trying to --
24 Carole Baptiste would always talk about the scope for
25 advancement in Haringey and she would say things to me
77
1 like, "If you stick with me you will do as well as
2 I did".
3 MR GARNHAM: "There was always this attempt to set
4 Lisa Arthurworrey apart and give her special tasks, i.e.
5 to look after Roma."
6 True?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Roma was a colleague of mine. I think
8 Carole Baptiste did have the expectation that I would
9 look after Roma, hence her discussing that evening with
10 me about the issues in the team and her saying that she
11 felt disappointed in me in particular because Roma had
12 cited bullying issues going on in the team.
13 MR GARNHAM: Did you feel when you were in this office that
14 you were getting consistent instruction from your
15 managers?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
17 MR GARNHAM: Can I compare then the sort of supervision, the
18 observations you have made about Ms Baptiste by
19 reference to those passages in the statement of Mr Myrie
20 with the sort of supervisions you had from the other two
21 supervisors? Was there a similar or a different
22 approach than the others?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was a similar approach with the
24 others.
25 MR GARNHAM: Was there talk about the role of black women
78
1 with the other two?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, there was not. With Rose and
3 Angella they were very committed to regular supervision
4 and the supervision content would be about the cases.
5 MR GARNHAM: Was there talk about God with the other two?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, there was not.
7 MR GARNHAM: So in what sense were there similarities
8 between the Baptiste supervisions and the other two?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The similarities were mainly that you
10 would go in, my experience having been supervised by
11 Rose and Angella, I would go in and discuss cases, tell
12 them where they are at, and again it would not provoke
13 any discussion from either Rose or Angella and I would
14 be just given a list of actions.
15 MR GARNHAM: In respect of those two supervisors were those
16 actions the ones you had proposed or were they coming up
17 with their own ideas?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: They were usually the ones that I had
19 proposed.
20 MR GARNHAM: So in any of your supervisions did you feel you
21 were getting tested, examined about the way you were
22 dealing with the case?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: Were the instructions you got from those two
25 supervisors of a piece consistent with those you got
79
1 from Ms Baptiste?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would say so, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Have another look please at the document you
4 have in front of you, the Monaghan report, 45A
5 page 150.684. I am sorry, I have lost that point.
6 I will have to come back to you on that.
7 Ms Baptiste said to Mr Monaghan that on occasions
8 she would offer you supervision but you did not want it.
9 Was that true?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not recollect any occasion when
11 Ms Baptiste offered me supervision and I refused it.
12 MR GARNHAM: Go on to page 633 in this please. This is
13 Ms Baptiste's statement to Mr Monaghan. In the middle
14 of the second paragraph Ms Baptiste says:
15 "During this difficult time it was difficult to
16 engage some of my workers in supervision and this
17 applied to Lisa Arthurworrey. I thought
18 Lisa Arthurworrey was a very professional, very smart
19 lady, able to make good judgments."
20 Do you see that?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I see that.
22 MR GARNHAM: Last paragraph:
23 "Eventually I spoke to Angella Mairs about
24 Lisa Arthurworrey not wanting to be supervised."
25 Any truth in that, that you did not want to be
80
1 supervised?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: There is no truth in that at all.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Can I ask you about your workload
4 a little more, please. You say in paragraph 56 of your
5 statement that July and August were your busiest period.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I do.
7 MR GARNHAM: With Victoria's case you had 19 files, 10 of
8 them CP, child protection.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Is that total number of cases high in your
11 experience?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: 19 cases was very high, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: What is the average?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: At the time I was not really aware that
15 there was an average. I was aware that lots of social
16 workers were carrying very heavy case loads and I do
17 remember one of my colleagues carrying a case load of
18 23/24.
19 MR GARNHAM: Would you have volume 26A please. Go to
20 page 10, 26A page 10. Tell us what that is please.
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: This is a copy of the Duty Investigation
22 and Assessment Team Procedure.
23 MR GARNHAM: Devised by who, do you know?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: This was devised by Angella Mairs.
25 MR GARNHAM: Go over to page 19, please, top line:
81
1 "Case load for individual workers. When DIA social
2 worker is not on Duty he/she will carry a maximum of
3 nine child protection cases and a maximum of three
4 family support cases, between 10 to 12 cases at any one
5 time."
6 Were you aware of that guidance?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I was not aware of that guidance, no.
8 MR GARNHAM: It does not sound from what you have said as if
9 that was followed.
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was not followed.
11 MR GARNHAM: Mr David Duncan says in his statement to us
12 that it is hard to imagine how a social worker could
13 work on more than 12 cases at a time -- paragraph 15 of
14 his statement, sir, for your note -- and that the
15 maximum should be 14 to 16. Were you aware that he
16 regarded 14 to 16 as the maximum?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I was not.
18 MR GARNHAM: At the time with which we are concerned you
19 were working on at least three more than the maximum
20 then.
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: What was your level of involvement in those
23 19 cases? Presumably they did not all require your
24 attention every day?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I remember at the end of August,
82
1 beginning of September I was actually allocated, I was
2 actually working on two very high profile child
3 protection cases and I do remember holding eight sexual
4 abuse cases.
5 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but how much are you involved on a daily
6 basis with each?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: There was a lot of work to be done on
8 each.
9 MR GARNHAM: So of the 19 cases you had were there any that
10 you could leave unlooked at for a fortnight?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, there was not.
12 MR GARNHAM: For a week?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I think so, maybe.
14 MR GARNHAM: And how many were there of that sort, of the
15 19?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not many. Most of my cases were active.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you keep a diary at these times?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Have we ever seen that? Have you ever been
20 asked to produce it?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have been asked. I did offer to
22 produce it.
23 MR GARNHAM: Well, it may well be it is our mistake in not
24 accepting that offer, but you still have it?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe I have my 1999 diary with me
83
1 here now.
2 MR GARNHAM: Splendid. So you could let us have it at
3 lunchtime?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I could.
5 MR GARNHAM: Will that show the sort of involvement you had
6 with these ongoing 19 cases?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It will, yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to get a picture of how you were
9 involved in these cases on a daily basis. Were you on
10 the go running around all day long or did you have time
11 to sit back and reflect on the way you should handle
12 a case?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I was on the go all day long with no
14 time to reflect.
15 MR GARNHAM: Reflection is quite an important thing for
16 a social worker, is it not?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: The chance to think about how things are going
19 on a case and where you should take it?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: And you did not have that?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not.
23 MR GARNHAM: Had you had it when you were at Hammersmith and
24 Fulham?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did, yes.
84
1 MR GARNHAM: How long did it take you normally to prepare
2 for a case conference?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The case conference that I prepared at
4 Hammersmith and Fulham took me about a month actually to
5 prepare for that case conference because there was a lot
6 of children in that family.
7 MR GARNHAM: But not continuous work?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was ongoing work, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: But not continuous, you were not engaged on it
10 all day long, every day for a month?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not that particular case conference.
12 MR GARNHAM: Presumably you got a little quicker once you
13 had got past your first case conference?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: My second case conference I was a little
15 bit more experienced, yes, I would say.
16 MR GARNHAM: So how long was it then taking you to prepare
17 for a case conference?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: In that particular case it was not just
19 the case conference that I was preparing for. We
20 decided to initiate care proceedings and that had to
21 come before the case conference.
22 MR GARNHAM: You are now talking about the one that was
23 being discussed at the time of your meeting with
24 Petra Kitchman.
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
85
1 MR GARNHAM: Very well. That is helpful. Let us turn to
2 Victoria's case. You were allocated that case I think
3 on 30th July. You did say 2nd August earlier.
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The case was allocated on 30th July. It
5 appeared on my desk on 2nd August.
6 MR GARNHAM: And the allocation was at a time when you were
7 not on Duty?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: I think we have the notes relating to this, and
10 you are going to need to look at them several times, at
11 page 67 in volume 6, please. Are these your handwritten
12 notes of Victoria's case?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: They are, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: It is a contact sheet I think we are looking
15 at.
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: And it starts with some entries by other people
18 beginning I think with Shanti Jacobs.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: We see about halfway down the page:
21 "Allocate to Lisa Arthurworrey to discuss the
22 implementation of the strategy meeting decisions
23 with" -- I cannot read the initials.
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Manager.
25 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. That is said to have happened on
86
1 30th July and who is the initials beside it?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The initials beside it are
3 Carole Baptiste's initials but it does say:
4 "Allocate to Lisa Arthurworrey to discuss the
5 implementation of the strategy meeting decisions ..."
6 MR GARNHAM: So it was Carole Baptiste who allocated it to
7 you?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Do you know what checks she made of your
10 suitability for this case?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I do not.
12 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether, and say if you do not,
13 whether any checks were made about your suitability?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would say no checks were made about my
15 suitability because when cases were allocated to social
16 workers there was often very little thought or
17 consideration to a social worker's experience and
18 current commitments, current workload.
19 MR GARNHAM: We can trace your dealings with Victoria's case
20 through your notes and they work backwards in this
21 volume so that one turns progressively towards the front
22 of the page to trace what you are doing, is that right?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right.
24 MR GARNHAM: How do you make your notes? Do you make them
25 on a daily basis, or every time you do something, or at
87
1 the end of the case, or how?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do remember in Victoria's case at the
3 beginning I was trying to make notes as things were
4 happening. I can tell you that when I interviewed
5 Victoria and when I interviewed Kouao I had taken notes
6 in my notebook and did not write those notes up until
7 some time after the home visit on 16th August.
8 MR GARNHAM: But generally your practice was to write them
9 straight into here at the end of the piece of work, was
10 it?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: If I could, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: There is nothing that I have been able to see
13 in this set of notes to suggest that at any time during
14 your dealings with Victoria you sat back and produced
15 a sort of summary of where you had got to and what your
16 thinking was. Have I missed that?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not think that I did sit back and
18 complete a summary.
19 MR GARNHAM: There is nothing to suggest any sort of
20 evaluation process of where you had got to.
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: There was no evaluation process.
22 MR GARNHAM: Should there have been?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Definitely, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: That is an error by you, is it not?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I consulted with my managers at every
88
1 step of the way with Victoria's case.
2 MR GARNHAM: That is slightly different, is it not? You
3 said to us earlier that reflection is important in
4 social work and you also said that there was not much
5 time for reflection in this office but nonetheless you
6 ought, ought you not, to have found time in a case like
7 Victoria's to make an overall assessment during the
8 course of your handling of it?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: You are saying a case like Victoria's.
10 MR GARNHAM: A case where initially there were child
11 protection concerns.
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe I made that evaluation at the
13 start, when I received her file.
14 MR GARNHAM: But not again thereafter?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not again thereafter.
16 MR GARNHAM: And should you have done?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe I should have done, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: You noted on these records that you received
19 the file on 2nd August and you received it I think as an
20 on Duty case, did you not?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I was not on Duty on 2nd August, no.
22 MR GARNHAM: But was it an on Duty case?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was an on Duty case.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did you receive it as an on Duty case even
25 though you were not on Duty, or not? Tell me if I am
89
1 wrong.
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not understand.
3 MR GARNHAM: Was it being handled as a Duty case or was it
4 being referred to you as part of a long-term piece of
5 work?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Initially it was a Duty case which had
7 been identified as having ongoing work and that is when
8 it was allocated to me.
9 MR GARNHAM: Because it is right to say, is it not, that
10 a case should not stay on Duty for prolonged periods?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: A maximum of six weeks or so?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I am not really sure.
14 MR GARNHAM: But certainly it should not go on for month
15 after month?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, it should not.
17 MR GARNHAM: But as far as you were concerned this had been
18 allocated to you for long-term work, not as an on Duty
19 case?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, although long-term work in the
21 I and A Team -- we were not supposed to carry cases for
22 more than three months.
23 MR GARNHAM: Right. Then this is my misunderstanding. In
24 your team -- never mind on Duty or not on Duty -- in
25 your team you were meant to do work on a case for
90
1 relatively short periods and then pass it to a Long Term
2 Team if necessary?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, that was my misunderstanding. But
5 there is a time limit for you in the team you were in to
6 have the case before it goes to that Long Term Team.
7 You say three months?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it was.
9 MR GARNHAM: In the papers that were gathered for the
10 Monaghan report Carol Wilson said, and I can take you to
11 the reference if necessary but take it from me for the
12 time being, Carol Wilson said that cases should be
13 transferred to the Long Term Team after six weeks. But
14 you say three months.
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: All I can say is that we were told that
16 we should not carry cases longer than three months. The
17 objective was to carry cases up until the initial child
18 protection case conference or the initial care
19 proceedings. Once we had convened the initial child
20 protection case conference and a decision had been made,
21 a care plan drawn up, then that case would be
22 transferred to the Long Term Team to implement the care
23 plan.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. Sir, for your note the
25 reference to Carol Wilson is at 45A page 150.681.
91
1 Can I ask you to go back to your notes, page 67 in
2 volume 6. Can you help me with the second entry:
3 "Telephone call ..." I do not think it is in your
4 handwriting, is it, the second entry on page 67?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Okay, I see it.
6 MR GARNHAM: It is not your handwriting?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No it is not.
8 MR GARNHAM: Is it Shanti Jacobs' handwriting?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is Shanti's handwriting.
10 MR GARNHAM: "Telephone call with Karen Johns", who is
11 a social worker at the North Middlesex Hospital.
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: "Invited her to strategy meeting at 2.30. Will
14 bring the medical notes" and I struggle with the
15 remaining words "in CP referral." Do you see that?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I see that.
17 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask you about that is paragraph 78
18 of your statement, if you can pull up your statement,
19 you refer to that note and then you say "... but this
20 did not happen."
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: I take it to mean that you are there asserting
23 that Karen Johns did not bring those medical records to
24 the strategy meeting.
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not know whether Karen Johns
92
1 brought those medical notes to the strategy meeting.
2 What I do know is that when I was allocated Victoria's
3 file on Monday the 2nd I do not recollect there being
4 any medical notes on her file.
5 MR GARNHAM: You see, the evidence we had from Ms Johns was
6 that she brought three sets, three copies of the
7 CP forms, the A&E forms and the CP diagrams that are the
8 body maps, but you did not get them on that day.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not remember seeing that
10 information on that day.
11 MR GARNHAM: When did you first see that information then?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: When the information was faxed to me by
13 Nurse Isobel Quinn on 3rd August.
14 MR GARNHAM: So if it was passed by Ms Johns to Haringey's
15 representatives at that first strategy meeting, it was
16 not then passed on to you?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It was not -- that information was not
18 in Victoria's file when I received it.
19 MR GARNHAM: You say you got it when it was faxed to you by
20 Karen Johns?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Isobel Quinn.
22 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, Isobel Quinn. Do you know whether
23 Karen Johns played any part of that process?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I remember receiving a fax from
25 Karen Johns. It was either on the 2nd or the 3rd.
93
1 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you first whether you had any
2 telephone conversations with Karen Johns?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: At the time of writing my statement
4 I did not remember having any telephone conversations
5 with Karen Johns. I have since been able to recollect
6 that we perhaps did have a conversation and I do
7 remember me telling her that I could not talk about this
8 case because I had not seen the file and that I would
9 contact her back as soon as I got the file.
10 MR GARNHAM: Would that have been on about 2nd August?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it would have been.
12 MR GARNHAM: By which time you had read this contact sheet?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not know what time on the
14 2nd August that I read the contact sheet because
15 I cannot remember what time the file appeared on my
16 desk.
17 MR GARNHAM: You cannot say whether that was before or after
18 your conversation with Karen Johns. It must have been
19 after, must it not?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It must have been after, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: It may be that your recollection of that
22 meeting is insufficiently precise to answer this
23 question, in which case tell me, but do you recall what
24 Karen Johns said about the case?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: In the telephone discussion?
94
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I do not.
3 MR GARNHAM: Do you recall whether you asked her to repeat
4 what she had said to the strategy meeting?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not recall that, no.
6 MR GARNHAM: Would that be the sort of thing you would do in
7 a conversation like this where you have just picked up
8 the file?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not believe so, not at that point,
10 no.
11 MR GARNHAM: Can we make sure we understand what it was that
12 this file contained? It contained a referral from the
13 NMH social worker, did it?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It did.
15 MR GARNHAM: Is that the document we have at page 40 in
16 volume 6?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is the document, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: So you had that from the start?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did.
20 MR GARNHAM: And you read it?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I read it.
22 MR GARNHAM: And you read the whole of page 41?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I read the whole of page 41.
24 MR GARNHAM: Have you read that again in the course of
25 preparing for these hearings?
95
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have.
2 MR GARNHAM: Would you now do anything different from what
3 you had done on reading that single sheet of
4 information?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would have made sure that I had seen,
6 because I knew from the strategy meeting recommendations
7 that photographs had been sought. I did not look at
8 Victoria's photographs. I would have made that
9 a priority at that stage.
10 MR GARNHAM: So if you were back in the same position and
11 you got this piece of information you would have made
12 seeing the photographs a priority?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Only after the strategy meeting.
14 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The strategy meeting had happened four
15 days before, five days before.
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Right.
17 MR GARNHAM: 28th July.
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: We are now on 2nd August.
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
21 MR GARNHAM: You had received the minutes of that strategy
22 meeting, you tell us.
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: What did the fact that there had been
25 a strategy meeting say to you?
96
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That this was clearly child protection,
2 that this was clearly urgent.
3 MR GARNHAM: Because they are set up where there is cause to
4 believe that a child has suffered or is likely to suffer
5 harm?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: So you knew at that stage that this was that
8 sort of case?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I knew, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: The notes to that strategy meeting are at
11 page 91 in this volume. Do you have those?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do.
13 MR GARNHAM: Those are notes I think made by Ms Kozinos.
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: They were available to you right from the
16 start.
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I remember reading the strategy meeting
18 recommendations right from the start.
19 MR GARNHAM: Were you aware that Police Constable Jones did
20 not have a copy of those minutes?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I was not aware.
22 MR GARNHAM: At any stage during your dealings in this case
23 were you aware of that?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I was not aware.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did she ever ask you for a look at these
97
1 minutes?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not that I can recollect.
3 MR GARNHAM: We see on page 94 that there is a list of
4 tasks, list of jobs to be done. 18 in total.
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: You read those and decided which of them were
7 relevant to you?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: To make sure I understand what else you had
10 available, you had a fax from Dr Schwartz I think, at
11 the CMH?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not on Monday the 2nd August.
13 MR GARNHAM: Let us identify the fax first please, page 277
14 in that volume. Do you have that page?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have page 277, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: In paragraph 71 of your statement you set out
17 what it was you had received:
18 "When I received Victoria's case file it contained
19 the referral from North Middlesex Hospital, the first
20 Strategy Meeting record [we have looked at those],
21 a faxed message from Dr Schwartz to Caroline Rogers ..."
22 I am assuming that that is this.
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: So you had that from the beginning?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
98
1 MR GARNHAM: You also had a fax from Caroline Rogers from
2 the Medical Records Library and the first contact sheet
3 we have looked at.
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you follow up that fax we have just looked
6 at from Schwartz to Rogers?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Not the week beginning 2nd August, no.
8 MR GARNHAM: Did that fax consist just of the cover sheet or
9 was there anything else with it?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: When I received the fax it consisted of
11 the cover sheet, a letter from Dr Dempster.
12 MR GARNHAM: Are you sure about this? I am suggesting to
13 you that you had page 277 from the start, because that
14 is what you appear to say in paragraph 71 of your
15 statement. On page 277 it is just a cover sheet saying
16 "please contact Dr Schwartz urgently" and it is
17 addressed to Caroline Rogers. I am suggesting you had
18 that single sheet, is that right?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes I did.
20 MR GARNHAM: Other documentation from CMH did not come to
21 you until later, is that right?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right.
23 MR GARNHAM: So my question to you is whether you followed
24 up your receipt of that single sheet by saying to
25 Caroline Rogers, "Have you done what Dr Schwartz asked
99
1 you in the fax"?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
3 MR GARNHAM: Why was that?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Caroline Rogers was a social worker in
5 the Long Term Children and Families Team. She had been
6 working on Victoria's case because she had been on duty
7 the week that Victoria's case came in.
8 MR GARNHAM: Yes. How does that explain the answer to my
9 question?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Thereafter she -- I did not think to
11 have a conversation with Caroline Rogers about this.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you at that stage think to have
13 a conversation with Dr Schwartz?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because it had been included in the case papers
16 relevant to this case, so plainly it had something to do
17 with Victoria.
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: You also had the fax from the medical library,
20 did that reveal anything? Again paragraph 71 of your
21 statement: "... handwritten fax from Caroline to the
22 Medical Records Library ..."
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I knew that information had been
24 requested from the Central Middlesex Hospital.
25 MR GARNHAM: But you did not at that stage know anything
100
1 more?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not know anything more at that
3 stage.
4 MR GARNHAM: And you had the first contact sheet that we
5 have looked at?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
7 MR GARNHAM: So you knew from that material, did you, that
8 Victoria had no GP?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I knew that, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: And that she was not registered at a school,
11 enrolled at a school?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I knew that, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Did you speak to either of the two people from
14 your office who had been at the strategy meeting,
15 Rose Kozinos and Caroline Rogers?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
17 MR GARNHAM: Was that not the sort of thing that one would
18 do in an office like yours when you get a case like this
19 and you see that two of your colleagues went to the
20 strategy meeting?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is not something that I had ever done
22 in my office before.
23 MR GARNHAM: Because it would have given you a fairly quick
24 route into knowing what this thing was all about, would
25 it not?
|
