|
Archived Transcript for 23 November 2001: Pages
151 to 194
151
1 now would be a convenient moment?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would be a convenient moment. Thank
3 you, Mr Garnham. I suggest we get back here at 2.05 pm.
4 MR GARNHAM: Thank you sir.
5 (1.50 pm)
6 (A short break)
7 (2.05 pm)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Garnham, ladies and gentlemen, I am very
9 anxious that we do not rush the evidence that we are
10 getting from Miss Arthurworrey which I attach importance
11 to, and I propose that we will adjourn at the usual time
12 of 3 o'clock today and reconvene on Monday, and I do not
13 want you to rush and I do not want Miss Hoyal to have
14 less than her 30 minutes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Miss Arthurworrey, just a couple more questions
16 with regard to the completion, the signing-off of this
17 file. You say in paragraph 237 of your statement -- and
18 you might like to look at that -- that the summary was
19 signed off by Rose and/or Angella. In 242 you say it
20 was signed off by Rose and Angella. I just wanted to
21 understand whether there was a subtlety in that that
22 I missed. Who do you understand signed it off?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I know that the closing summary would
24 have been signed off first by Rose who would have then
25 passed it to Angella Mairs but I do not know whether she
152
1 signed that.
2 MR GARNHAM: So what you know, because you saw it with your
3 own eyes, is that Rose Kozinos signed it?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I know that Rose Kozinos must have
5 signed it because I found Victoria's file in the "close"
6 basket on February 25th and it was just waiting to be
7 put on to the system as closed.
8 MR GARNHAM: And because it is there, that means, if the
9 systems worked, Rose Kozinos must have signed it or did
10 you see the signature?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I saw both Angella's signature and
12 Rose's signature on the last contact sheet of Victoria's
13 file which is missing. And on that contact sheet I had
14 recorded details of the closing letter that I sent to
15 Kouao and also a message that I had left for Constable
16 Jones on the 18th to inform her that the department was
17 closing Victoria's file.
18 MR GARNHAM: So exactly when do you say you handed the file
19 to Rose Kozinos?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Some time after 18th February. I really
21 cannot remember the exact date but by the 25th --
22 MR GARNHAM: So between the 18th and the 25th but you cannot
23 say when in that week?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I cannot say when.
25 MR GARNHAM: You deal with the referral of 25th February and
153
1 the events that followed in paragraphs 238 to 244 of
2 your statement. We can read that for ourselves and I am
3 not going to take you through it in detail. There are
4 just three points in detail I want to ask you about.
5 First you say both the last contact sheet and the
6 closing summary were on the file on 25th February.
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: And they went missing thereafter?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I know the last contact sheet went
10 missing on the 28th February because I saw Angella Mairs
11 removed the last contact sheet.
12 MR GARNHAM: I am going to ask you about each of them. Do
13 you agree with me that after the 25th both of those
14 documents went missing?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: The final contact sheet, you say in
17 paragraph 242 that you saw Angella Mairs take it from
18 the file.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I did.
20 MR GARNHAM: Can you describe how that came about that you
21 saw that?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: On Monday 28th February I was in a state
23 of shock. I had just heard on the television news that
24 Kouao and Manning had been charged with Victoria's
25 murder. I came into work and I went to see Dave Duncan.
154
1 The whole office was chaotic, people were panicking
2 because everybody thought that this could happen to
3 them. I remember Angella Mairs stating that she needed
4 a copy of Victoria's -- that Dawn Cardis had requested
5 Victoria's file to take over to Carol Wilson, the
6 Assistant Director, and Angella said that she needed
7 a copy for the office. Angella went to the photocopying
8 room.
9 MR GARNHAM: Is this in your sight?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I followed her. I followed her to the
11 photocopy room and someone from Admin was there.
12 Angella was passing the admin officer Victoria's file to
13 photocopy and the first thing that Angella did was just
14 tear the last contact sheet and she said, "Let us get
15 rid of this", and she tore it off.
16 MR GARNHAM: And did what with it?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I am not quite sure.
18 MR GARNHAM: You were watching her and it must have been
19 a surprising action. Did you not see whether she
20 pocketed it or screwed it up or took it away with her?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I cannot recollect. I think she screwed
22 it up. I really cannot be sure.
23 MR GARNHAM: Did you say anything about this at the time?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: At the time I spoke to
25 Valerie Robertson, my colleague. I have already
155
1 explained to you Angella Mairs was regarded as the head
2 teacher in the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team.
3 I think I should expand that statement to say she was
4 the headmistress of the North Tottenham office and she
5 had such a strong personality that I really did not know
6 in terms of management who to inform of this.
7 MR GARNHAM: Was there nobody senior to her or nobody
8 independent junior to her that you could have reported
9 this to?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Dave Duncan was senior to Angella Mairs
11 but I did not feel confidence -- I did not feel
12 comfortable in discussing this with Dave Duncan.
13 Primarily because I knew that I was still in Angella's
14 team and she had made no attempt to hide the fact that
15 she had removed the last contact sheet, she just did
16 that.
17 MR GARNHAM: You have been asked about these incidents
18 a number of times now, Miss Arthurworrey. Why is it
19 that you did not report this the first time you were
20 investigated?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Part 8?
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Because basically it was my intention to
24 inform the Part 8 that as soon as I went into that
25 interview I felt that they were really not interested in
156
1 establishing the true facts of Victoria's case.
2 MR GARNHAM: Even if that is right, why does that stop you
3 telling them that "Lisa, it cannot be said that you kept
4 it quiet"?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not feel able to tell them. That
6 was a very oppressive interview. I was --
7 MR GARNHAM: More so than this, then?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely.
9 MR GARNHAM: Because you have felt happy to tell us in the
10 statement; you are happy to talk about it now?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: But I did inform the Part 8 panel in my
12 response to that report.
13 MR GARNHAM: But not when you were first approached about
14 this?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The Part 8 did not ask me. I should
16 have told the Part 8 but I did not feel able.
17 MR GARNHAM: There were others who you could have mentioned
18 it to, were there not? You have mentioned Dave Duncan.
19 You could have mentioned it to Barry Almedia,
20 Carol Wilson, Rose Kozinos?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I basically -- having seen what I saw,
22 I was very shocked and I basically did not know whom
23 I could go to with this information and feel safe about
24 it.
25 MR GARNHAM: You are aware, are you not, that you are making
157
1 serious allegations against Miss Mairs?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I am aware.
3 MR GARNHAM: And if you were going to make those should you
4 not have made them early on in Haringey's own internal
5 investigation?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: As I said, the Part 8 Inquiry panel did
7 not seem interested in establishing the true facts of
8 Victoria's case. That interview was very oppressive,
9 their line of questioning was accusatory and it was
10 blaming.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever tell anybody about this in the
12 early stages?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I told Valerie Robertson, my colleague,
14 as soon as the incident happened.
15 MR GARNHAM: Anybody else?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I told another colleague, John Myrie,
17 a couple of days after.
18 MR GARNHAM: Did you expect them to go and report what you
19 told them to others in authority?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not. It was for me to deal
21 with it and at the time I really did not know how to
22 deal with it and I was just thinking about what I was
23 going to do.
24 MR GARNHAM: So what was the point in telling those
25 colleagues?
158
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I told Valerie Robertson because Valerie
2 was a friend, she had been supporting me from the time
3 that Victoria died and I felt safe that I could disclose
4 this information to her and it would not go anywhere.
5 My biggest fear was that I was still working in
6 Angella's team and she had a reputation for being
7 a bully to those whom she did not get on with.
8 MR GARNHAM: I want you to try and consider this question
9 and not to speculate but to talk on only what
10 conclusions you can draw from what happened. Is there
11 any obvious explanation as to why Angella Mairs should
12 have removed that last sheet?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she should not have removed that
14 last sheet.
15 MR GARNHAM: Is there any obvious reason why she should have
16 done it knowing that she should not have?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The obvious reason would be she had
18 something to hide.
19 MR GARNHAM: What was on the last sheet that concerned her?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Her signature.
21 MR GARNHAM: Showing what?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: "Angella Mairs NFA".
23 MR GARNHAM: No further action?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No further action.
25 MR GARNHAM: What was the name of the administrative
159
1 assistant in the photocopy room?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I really cannot remember. At that time
3 the department was going through the restructuring. We
4 had a number of administrators that came in and came
5 out. I cannot remember.
6 MR GARNHAM: You did not think to make enquiries as soon as
7 you realised what was happening because that was the one
8 witness, was it not, to what had happened?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: All I can say is that my thoughts were
10 with Victoria on that day. I was in a state of shock
11 and I was not thinking straight at all.
12 MR GARNHAM: Was the administrative assistant male or
13 female?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Female.
15 MR GARNHAM: Black or white?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: White.
17 MR GARNHAM: Young or old?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Young.
19 MR GARNHAM: Can you guess the age?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No idea.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am tempted to ask you what you mean by
22 "young" but I might not like the answer. Under 40?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes. I can say though that the
24 administrator did not see Angella remove that contact
25 sheet because the way the photocopying room -- the way
160
1 the photocopier -- the administrator was photocopying
2 the file so she had her back to Angella Mairs.
3 MR GARNHAM: Did anybody else witness this?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
5 MR GARNHAM: The second point of importance I want to ask
6 you about from those paragraphs is that you say you
7 noticed when you saw the file on the 25th February that
8 Rose Kozinos had not written up her notes of the meeting
9 of 2nd November.
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
11 MR GARNHAM: You say you told Rose Kozinos during that
12 afternoon of the 25th, that that write-up had not
13 happened on the file.
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The write-up was not there, yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: You say she then went on to do it in front of
16 you.
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: She did.
18 MR GARNHAM: She says not so, but you disagree?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I disagree.
20 MR GARNHAM: My counting ability is failing me because
21 I said there were three points I wanted to draw out of
22 those notes and there are only two and we have dealt
23 with those now. The other point I want to ask you about
24 though is to take you back to something I had indicated
25 I would need to put to you, relating to Kitchman's
161
1 statement. Do you remember this?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: She says in her statement -- sir, for the note
4 volume 2, page 193 -- that some time after
5 20th August -- so we are jumping back I am afraid --
6 some time after 20th August she spoke to you on the
7 phone about the letter from Dr Rossiter. Do you
8 recollect a phone conversation with Kitchman?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not recollect a phone conversation
10 with Petra Kitchman.
11 MR GARNHAM: She says, or at least implies, that you told
12 her that you and Jones were carrying out a Section 47
13 investigation.
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would not have told Petra Kitchman
15 that because the Section 47 investigation had been
16 completed by 16th August, at the latest.
17 MR GARNHAM: Kitchman also says that she spoke to you on
18 4th October whereas you have given us the date of the
19 1st October. It may be that the date does not matter.
20 But she says that during that conversation you repeated
21 that you were undertaking a Section 47 investigation.
22 What do you say to that?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did not give her that information.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Finally with regard to your
25 statement, in paragraphs 245-249 you comment on the
162
1 condition of the Haringey file when you saw it in
2 preparation for this Inquiry. We can read that and we
3 can see what you say. Is there anything particular in
4 that that you think it is important to draw to our
5 attention or anything you want to add to what we can
6 find by reading those paragraphs?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: All I would like to say is that
8 Victoria's file was always kept in order and at the time
9 that I closed Victoria's file all the relevant documents
10 were on there and it was not in the order that the file
11 was disclosed to the Inquiry.
12 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. At the beginning of your evidence,
13 which I know must feel like a long time ago, I asked you
14 whether, having had the chance to reflect on it, there
15 was any part of your handling of Victoria's case which
16 you felt, knowing what you did at the time, you should
17 have done differently. Do you remember that?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: (Nods).
19 MR GARNHAM: You drew our attention to one matter which was
20 you said that after the strategy meeting of 5th November
21 you should have arranged to see Victoria and Kouao much
22 sooner than you did. During the course of the last two
23 days I have put to you a number of occasions when you
24 should have acted differently to the way you have. By
25 my calculation, on 24 additional occasions you have
163
1 agreed that you did not act as you should. I want to
2 run through them to give you the chance to say whether
3 that remains the position, all right?
4 You should have taken time to reflect and evaluate
5 the process of Victoria's case?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I agree with that.
7 MR GARNHAM: You should have made looking at the North
8 Middlesex Hospital photographs a priority when you
9 received the file on 2nd August?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I agree with that.
11 MS LAWSON: Sir, she did not have the photographs on
12 2nd August.
13 MR GARNHAM: Quite so.
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: But I should have sought the
15 photographs.
16 MR GARNHAM: So that you took the steps necessary so that
17 you could see them. Sorry, I am summarising. Sorry if
18 it was not clear. You should have ensured that someone
19 made enquiries of Devonshire Primary School?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I should have done. I did not
21 note -- yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: You should have called a review meeting to
23 check on the implementation of the action plan agreed at
24 the July meeting?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not believe that that was my
164
1 responsibility. I think that that should have been
2 a decision from either the manager or the person
3 chairing the strategy meeting.
4 MR GARNHAM: You accepted it when I put it to you before --
5 for the note it is day 26, page 114 -- but now you are
6 not sure that that is right; you do not think that is
7 a proper admission by you?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not think it was a proper
9 admission. I believe that was a clear responsibility of
10 either a team manager or of a senior practitioner
11 chairing the meeting.
12 MR GARNHAM: You should have investigated what the phrase
13 "ready for discharge" meant in the NMH fax.
14 I am doing this deliberately to give you the chance
15 to reconsider, so that if you want to reconsider an
16 admission you have made, do so.
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe it was for North Middlesex
18 Hospital -- it was their duty -- to inform me if they
19 had any concerns with regards to Victoria's discharge.
20 So, I do not accept that.
21 MR GARNHAM: For the note sir it is day 26, page 115.
22 You should have been more concerned about the
23 absence of education and you should have informed the
24 Education Welfare Service?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I agree with that.
165
1 MR GARNHAM: You had sufficient information following your
2 discussion with Rossiter on the 3rd to start a full
3 investigation into Victoria's well-being?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I disagree with that. My remit was to
5 carry out an initial assessment which involves making
6 enquiries.
7 MR GARNHAM: Sir, for your note Day 26, page 143.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
9 MR GARNHAM: You failed to analyse Kouao's account of the
10 delay in taking Victoria to the NMH following the
11 scalding, failed to think it through?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did fail to think it through. Not
13 enough attention was -- not enough thought was perhaps
14 given to that but Constable Jones had not informed me
15 that that was a problem but it was put to her.
16 MR GARNHAM: You failed to obtain sufficient information of
17 the interview with Victoria on the 6th August to make
18 a judgment as to her safety?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Sorry, could you just repeat that one
20 again please?
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You failed to obtain sufficient
22 information at the interview with Victoria on the 6th to
23 make a judgment about her safety?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The purpose of the interview with
25 Victoria on the 6th was to get an explanation for the
166
1 scalding. That was my focus of that interview and I did
2 get an explanation.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Well, we will look at that in the
4 light of what you also said at page 191, Day 26.
5 Next, you should not have made the assumption that
6 the hospital would inform you of whether it was safe for
7 Victoria to go home but you should have investigated the
8 matter properly yourself. If you remember, this I think
9 was the first of my suggestions to you that you should
10 not be making assumptions.
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Sorry, I am a bit tired. Could you just
12 read back --
13 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, and indicate again if you are
14 tired. We are now finishing, for me, but I want to make
15 sure you have a chance to deal with these points
16 properly.
17 You should not have made the assumption that the
18 hospital would inform you of whether it was safe for
19 Victoria to go home, you should have investigated the
20 matter yourself?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: The hospital had already informed me
22 that Victoria was ready for discharge and that they
23 would like this to happen as soon as possible. As
24 I have said before, if they had any concerns regarding
25 Victoria's discharge those concerns should have been
167
1 communicated to me clearly.
2 MR GARNHAM: But you assumed from what they were doing that
3 they had no such concerns and what I put to you was that
4 you should have not assumed it.
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I think a discussion with Dr Rossiter
6 before Victoria's discharge would have prevented any
7 confusion happening. I did try and see Dr Rossiter.
8 I was told that she was not available. I should have
9 updated her with regards to the initial Section 47
10 investigation and maybe that confusion could have been
11 ironed out there. So I do accept some responsibility
12 for that.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You should not have assumed that
14 the old marks noted by the NMH were covered in the CMH's
15 letter; in other words, you should not have assumed that
16 the old marks were over two weeks old?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: As soon as I received the correspondence
18 from the Central Middlesex Hospital I should have passed
19 that on to North Middlesex. I believe it was the
20 hospital's duty to investigate the causes of Victoria's
21 injuries and they should have had the Central Middlesex
22 Hospital to help them make an informed decision.
23 MR GARNHAM: We will compare that with what you said at
24 page 206 on Day 26. You should have passed the CMH
25 notes to Dr Rossiter as soon as you got them.
168
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I should have done.
2 MR GARNHAM: You were guilty of an error of judgment in
3 concluding that there were no child protection concerns
4 on 6th August?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would disagree with that. I would say
6 based on the information that I had been given from the
7 North Middlesex Hospital I felt the discharge, as I have
8 said in my note, was appropriate, based on that
9 information.
10 MR GARNHAM: Day 26, page 212, sir.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 MR GARNHAM: You should have raised the question of why
13 Victoria was not taken to the Somerset Gardens Health
14 Centre by Kouao following scalding.
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: When I was discussing the scalding
16 incident with Kouao on 5th August I was not aware that
17 Manning lived next door to a medical centre.
18 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Day 27, page 16.
19 You should have made checks to trace Manning's
20 alleged fiancee to confirm the story you were being
21 given?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is something that I could have
23 done. I am not sure how far I would have got with that.
24 MR GARNHAM: You should have spoken to Victoria during the
25 course of the home visit on 16th October?
169
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I believe had I realised some of the
2 information in the Central Middlesex Hospital -- again
3 to do with the information I had at that time -- had
4 I noticed that Kouao had not taken Victoria to the
5 Central Middlesex Hospital, as she had informed
6 Constable Jones and myself, detailed discussions with
7 Victoria would have taken place about what she did, what
8 she did on a day-to-day basis, but based on the
9 information I relied on observation and Victoria's
10 interaction with Kouao and Manning.
11 MR GARNHAM: What you accepted from me before was that
12 despite that, despite all of that, you should have
13 spoken to Victoria during the course of that visit. Do
14 you agree?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It would have been good practice, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: You should have checked during that home visit
17 how Victoria spent her days?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I think that again is to do with the
19 information. Had Dr Rossiter informed me of the
20 concerns that she is now saying that she had, Victoria's
21 case would have been handled in a completely different
22 way. In fact, I am pretty sure that I would not have
23 been working Victoria's case because I was not
24 experienced enough and I was just totally out of my
25 depth. It was a very complex case.
170
1 MR GARNHAM: What you agreed with me before was that in any
2 event good practice would dictate that you would check
3 how Victoria was spending her days.
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: You should have asked Victoria about the
6 overeating noted at the hospital, not relied on what you
7 saw of the preparation of food in the house?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: But I did ask Kouao that question in the
9 presence of Victoria.
10 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree you should have asked Victoria?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I could have asked her what she liked
12 eating, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: You made an inappropriate assumption or
14 generalisation about the behaviour of Afro-Caribbean
15 families and applied it to the family you were dealing
16 with?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not believe I did.
18 MR GARNHAM: You did when I asked you before.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have tried to explain that that was
20 a conclusion rather than an assumption, rather than just
21 the hospital had made reference to this master/servant
22 relationship, the description they had given me was
23 Victoria running to her mother's side as if being called
24 to attention. I did not see Victoria do that. In fact
25 the only time I did see Victoria do that was in my home
171
1 visit on 28th October and on that occasion Victoria did
2 not present as a fearful child.
3 I believe it was inappropriate -- I should have made
4 it clear that that was a conclusion of mine and I do not
5 think it should have been recorded in the assessment.
6 I think it should have been recorded in my supervision
7 notes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. We can compare that with Day 27,
9 page 27.
10 You failed to consider the issue of chastisement
11 with a looped wire, having read Rossiter's letter of
12 15th November?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did fail to consider that, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: You failed to check whether the Kimbidimas'
15 house was a suitable one for Victoria to stay in?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I failed to check but I was not advised
17 to check and I consulted with my senior as to what steps
18 I should take. If I had been told to go and visit the
19 Kimbidimas, I would have visited the Kimbidimas.
20 MR GARNHAM: You should have completed a section 47
21 investigation and called a case conference as a matter
22 of urgency after the second strategy meeting?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No urgency was communicated to me during
24 that strategy meeting. So if it was urgent, timescales
25 would have been discussed.
172
1 MR GARNHAM: So you resile from what you said earlier today?
2 You ought not to have assumed that Victoria was not
3 being abused in November 1999 on the ground that she
4 seemed relax and happy at the time you saw her?
5 MISS ARTHURWORREY: If I was aware of Haringey's Child
6 Protection Procedures, in particular the paragraph that
7 we looked at, then I would not have made the assumption
8 that I made based on my observations.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. We can compare that with Day 27,
10 page 119.
11 Finally, you should not have assumed that Kouao's
12 non- attendance on 1st December indicated that she had
13 moved on?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely not and that is a lesson that
15 I have learned; that failure to gain access to premises,
16 failure to interview a child should fundamentally spell
17 out danger and I should consult with a manager and with
18 the Legal Department.
19 MR GARNHAM: Miss Arthurworrey, thank you very much.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Hoyal, I am in your hands. You are
21 entitled to 30 minutes of questions and I do not want
22 you to in any way be disadvantaged. I intend that we
23 should rise at 3 o'clock. If you wish to have your
24 30 minutes now that is fine by me but I will need to ask
25 questions on Monday morning. So --
173
1 MS HOYAL: Yes, I think I would prefer to proceed if that is
2 all right with you.
3 I am sorry that I have to ask you some more
4 questions, but there is certain ground that we do have
5 to cover today and if I have not covered it today
6 I assure you I will not be asking you any questions on
7 Monday.
8 Could you please look at the child protection forms
9 that you were sent by the North Middlesex Hospital. You
10 will find them in volume 6, page 251 onwards. We will
11 start with CP1 at 250. This is headed "Medical Record".
12 Is there any mention on that page of a belt buckle mark,
13 physical chastisement or non-accidental injury being
14 written on this form?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, there is not.
16 MS HOYAL: Look at 251 which is the medical examination. If
17 you look at the description at the top, (i) is the
18 medical examination child to doctor, (ii) is child to
19 another person and reported, (iii) parent to doctor and
20 there is written "mother", and (iv) other. Then
21 a section headed "Detailed History". Is this the form
22 that North Middlesex Hospital faxed to you on 3rd August
23 with the previous form?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: This is the form that North Middlesex
25 Hospital faxed to me.
174
1 MS HOYAL: Would you be kind enough to read it?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: "Mother says they woke up today at
3 12 o'clock. Anna has been itching. She went to the
4 bathroom. Mum heard her scream and went to the bathroom
5 to find Anna had scalded her face. Apparently she
6 poured hot water over her head to try and stop the
7 itching. Mum said she brought her straight to hospital
8 but then cannot say exactly what time the incident
9 happened. Initially said 12 pm, then 1 pm, then 3 pm.
10 Also later said she had put something on Anna's face at
11 home, applied to burn wound.
12 "Background: Mum is an airport manager in France.
13 She took two years' unpaid leave to come and study
14 English here to improve her opportunities at work. So
15 she is supporting herself here. Has done some work as
16 a care assistant and is now looking for similar work in
17 this area. She initially stayed in hotels but has moved
18 around a lot and has now moved here. It is cheaper.
19 She has been here four months. Anna has been seen at
20 Central Middlesex Hospital for scabies recently. She
21 has been on Derbac which her mother is applying every
22 day."
23 MS HOYAL: Thank you. If you go to page 252 that is the
24 unamended CP3 form --
25 MR MASON: Sir, if I may interject at this point, this
175
1 witness has been asked about the documents that were
2 faxed to her on 3rd August. This page 252 is not what
3 was faxed to her on 3rd August, that is page 286 which
4 is a different document and clearly has a fax header at
5 the top of the page.
6 MR GARNHAM: Sir, with respect this is a matter for
7 submissions. In my respectful submission Miss Hoyal
8 should be allowed to put her questions as she wishes.
9 MR MASON: I apologise if I have interrupted.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Please carry on.
11 MS HOYAL: This is the first CP3 form which we were told was
12 made available at the first strategy meeting that you
13 did not attend on 28th July. If you look at the bottom
14 of that there are three categories, and the category
15 that has been signed by Dr Forlee and countersigned by
16 Dr Rossiter on 25th July is the box headed "I wish to
17 await further information before committing myself".
18 Correct?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Correct.
20 MS HOYAL: And the boxes that say "I consider the incident
21 is likely to be accidental" and the box "I consider the
22 incident is likely to be non-accidental", neither of
23 those boxes are ticked.
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
25 MS HOYAL: So this first strategy meeting on 25th July would
176
1 have been misled by this form as to the beliefs of the
2 doctors?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely.
4 MS HOYAL: Let us look at the second CP3 form which is at
5 06/286. This is the form amended by Dr Rossiter
6 apparently on 1st August. Now, can you look at the
7 three boxes again? Is the box "I consider the incident
8 is likely to be accidental" ticked or unticked?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is unticked.
10 MS HOYAL: Is the box "I consider the incident is likely to
11 be non-accidental" ticked or unticked?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is unticked.
13 MS HOYAL: Is the box "I wish to await further information
14 before committing myself" ticked or unticked?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is ticked.
16 MS HOYAL: You see the little wiggly arrow at the end of
17 that box? Was it clear to you that that was supposed to
18 be pointing towards an accidental injury category?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No it was not.
20 MS HOYAL: Was it as a result of the information that you
21 received from the hospital that you subsequently
22 telephoned Dr Rossiter?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
24 MS HOYAL: And we have heard her concerns about emotional
25 abuse. Can you look at the section of this form headed
177
1 "Emotional State".
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
3 MS HOYAL: I think it reads:
4 "Child: Relaxed, smiling; scratching hands and arms.
5 Mother: very talkative".
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
7 MS HOYAL: Under the heading "General Condition", it does
8 refer to somebody being "unkempt looking, brought to
9 hospital in dirty dress, no underwear. In contrast
10 mother is well kempt" and it refers to the height, the
11 weight et cetera. They had not been completed at all,
12 have they?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: They have not.
14 MS HOYAL: And you were asked about the first two words
15 which you did not follow up but the general condition
16 thereafter starts with the scalds to the face, does it
17 not?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It does.
19 MS HOYAL: And there is no suggestion that any of those
20 marks are non-accidental there, is there?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: There is no suggestion, no.
22 MS HOYAL: Did you see the CP5 form which appears at
23 page 253?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I did.
25 MS HOYAL: This is the action checklist that the hospital is
178
1 supposed to complete competently to provide information
2 on the future plan for the child. Are you identified on
3 that form as a social worker anywhere?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No I am not.
5 MS HOYAL: Who is?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Luciana Frederick.
7 MS HOYAL: Was she ever allocated social worker in your
8 knowledge from the date of the strategy meeting onwards?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she was not.
10 MS HOYAL: Did you make it quite clear to Dr Rossiter in the
11 telephone conversation that you were the allocated
12 social worker?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I did.
14 MS HOYAL: Would you have expected a doctor of her
15 experience and seniority to have contacted you if she
16 had considered that you were not handling the
17 investigation in an appropriate manner?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
19 MS HOYAL: Did she ever do that?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
21 MS HOYAL: When you had your conversation with WPC Jones on
22 5th August and you showed her all this information you
23 had from North Middlesex Hospital, did she make any
24 remark about the absence of a mention of a belt buckle
25 mark?
179
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: PC Jones said to me, "This medical
2 report does not say anything".
3 MS HOYAL: Did you regard her as experienced police officer?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I had not worked with her professionally
5 before, but yes.
6 MS HOYAL: You had no reason to doubt her expertise and
7 experience as an officer investigating child abuse?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
9 MS HOYAL: Did she appear to be satisfied with the
10 information you showed her?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: She did appear to be satisfied.
12 MS HOYAL: As far as the criminal investigation was
13 concerned, who was taking the lead?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: PC Jones.
15 MS HOYAL: Turning to Dr Rossiter briefly. You say in
16 relation to the old marks -- and I do not need you to
17 look at this but it is in bundle 6, 062, that she told
18 you that the marks were caused by scratching or
19 infection from scratching.
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
21 MS HOYAL: At no stage did she mention about belt buckle
22 mark, looped wire or physical chastisement.
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
24 MS HOYAL: Would you have expected a paediatrician of her
25 seniority to have identified those as concerns if they
180
1 had been in her mind?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
3 MS HOYAL: You read a letter from Dr Dempster to the Duty
4 Social Worker from Central Middlesex Hospital dated
5 15th July.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
7 MS HOYAL: That you read on 12th August and it is at 06/211
8 for the record. Did that letter categorically state
9 there were no child protection concerns?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it did.
11 MS HOYAL: Was the information about the scabies marks and
12 scratching from scabies consistent with what you had
13 been told by Dr Rossiter on 3rd August?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes it was.
15 MS HOYAL: You said at the beginning of your evidence
16 yesterday that if you had been given a solid diagnosis,
17 a clear diagnosis of non-accidental injury, you think
18 the whole case would have proceeded differently.
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
20 MS HOYAL: Is that your well-considered view?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is my well-considered view.
22 MS HOYAL: Did it appear to you that when you spoke to
23 WPC Jones and showed her the documents that you had,
24 that she assumed that the written information from North
25 Middlesex Hospital that you had been provided with on
181
1 3rd August, plus your note of the conversation with
2 Dr Rossiter on 3rd August, made the suspicion of
3 physical non-accidental injury very much less?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
5 MS HOYAL: In relation to the interviews of both Victoria
6 and Kouao, you took the lead, did you not?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did, yes.
8 MS HOYAL: Would you have expected a policewoman of her
9 experience and expertise with the benefit of hindsight
10 to have taken the lead in relation to those two
11 interviews?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I did expect Constable Jones to take the
13 lead.
14 MS HOYAL: We have heard she was used to doing one or two
15 child abuse investigations a week and this was your
16 first one involving the police and a hospitalised child.
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
18 MS HOYAL: And the first one involving a suspicion of
19 serious non-accidental injury.
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
21 MS HOYAL: Did she intervene to stop the interview or to
22 tell you you were not doing it right or to give you any
23 further advice?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
25 MS HOYAL: Did you know at the time that she was actually
182
1 a memorandum-trained police officer whereas you were
2 not?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
4 MS HOYAL: Did she suggest that an interpreter was needed on
5 6th August or at all?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
7 MS HOYAL: At the time did she appear satisfied with the
8 technique of the interviews and also the content of the
9 questions and answers?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: She did.
11 MS HOYAL: And following those interviews she decided that
12 there was no crime to be investigated further?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
14 MS HOYAL: At the time, did you have any reason to doubt her
15 judgment?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
17 MS HOYAL: Do you know why Constable Jones did not obtain
18 the information from the Central Middlesex Hospital
19 herself?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I do not.
21 MS HOYAL: Do you know why she did not get the information
22 from the Brent Child Protection Team about the previous
23 investigation?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I do not.
25 MS HOYAL: Do you know if she did anything other than rely
183
1 on you?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I do not think so, no.
3 MS HOYAL: In relation to the scabies position and the visit
4 to the home, you had planned to visit the home on the
5 morning of 4th August, had you not?
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I had, yes.
7 MS HOYAL: Had it not been for information from WPC Jones
8 and the advice of your manager to change it to an office
9 visit, would you have proceeded to have gone to the home
10 on 4th August?
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would have proceeded. That was my
12 intention.
13 MS HOYAL: At the time, had you any reason to doubt the
14 competence of the Haringey Child Protection Team in
15 managing this sort of investigation?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
17 MS HOYAL: Did you, at the time, realise that it was the
18 police duty to examine the scene of the crime and not
19 a social worker?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, I did not.
21 MS HOYAL: When you saw Constable Jones on 5th August and
22 you both looked at the information, at that time was it
23 apparent to you that she had not obtained any
24 information from the Central Middlesex Hospital herself,
25 such as the information that you received on
184
1 12th August; she had not received that information at
2 that time?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she had not.
4 MS HOYAL: Can I ask you about the discharge on 6th August?
5 Did any nurse or doctor suggest to you or WPC Jones
6 whilst you were at the hospital that they had any
7 reservations about Victoria being discharged to her home
8 with a woman who was believed to be her mother?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No there was not.
10 MS HOYAL: Did the nurse who sat in on the interview with
11 Victoria suggest that the discharge be postponed until
12 Monday after the weekend?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have no recollection of that
14 conversation.
15 MS HOYAL: Would it have been the sort of thing you would
16 have recollected if it had been said?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Of course, yes, it would have, yes.
18 MS HOYAL: It would have been very important if a nurse or
19 a doctor had suggested that a discharge should be
20 postponed?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: (Nods).
22 MS HOYAL: In any of the conversations that you had with the
23 hospital, either by attending at the hospital or on the
24 phone to the nurses or doctors, did anybody suggest that
25 the discharge should not proceed on the 6th August?
185
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Nobody suggested that, no.
2 MS HOYAL: Did anyone express any concerns for her welfare
3 or safety as a result of a discharge?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No.
5 MS HOYAL: You were asked about your powers of critical
6 evaluation. Can you just think back to 12th August when
7 you had read the CMH information, you had had your
8 consultation with the manager and the decision was made
9 by your manager to conclude the Section 47 investigation
10 but to keep the file open on the basis of section 17,
11 Family Support Service.
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: (Nods).
13 MS HOYAL: Do you consider that was an evaluation that at
14 the time both you and your manager felt in the best
15 interests of the child?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it was.
17 MS HOYAL: And that decision was confirmed by your manager
18 at the next supervision on 20th September?
19 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it was.
20 MS HOYAL: And if she had had any doubts about the
21 appropriateness of that judgment, that would have been
22 the time for her to record any disapproval?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it would have been.
24 MS HOYAL: And she did the opposite?
25 MISS ARTHURWORREY: And she did the opposite.
186
1 MS HOYAL: Now the letter that we have heard about that
2 Miss Kitchman wrote to Dr Rossiter on 19th October. At
3 the time you accept there were mistakes and you made no
4 attempt to correct them. Can I ask you this: at any
5 stage between that letter arriving with Dr Rossiter in
6 October and Victoria's death in February, at any time
7 did Dr Rossiter contact you or write to you expressing
8 any concerns about Victoria's welfare?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
10 MS HOYAL: Did she write, do you know, to your department
11 clarifying her belief apparently that you had got the
12 medical evidence completely wrong or you misunderstood
13 it?
14 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
15 MS HOYAL: Is there no record of any effort by her
16 whatsoever or anyone else from the hospital to correct
17 what they now say was a fundamental misjudgment in the
18 understanding of the medical evidence by the Haringey
19 local authority?
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right.
21 MS HOYAL: Would it be reasonable, do you think, to have
22 expected her or one of her colleagues to have done so if
23 they thought that at that time?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
25 MS HOYAL: When you met Dr Rossiter for the first time at
187
1 the Central Criminal Court in the witness room, did she
2 recollect the conversation she had with you on
3 3rd August?
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, she did not.
5 MS HOYAL: Just remind us what you said.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Dr Rossiter asked me whether we had had
7 any consultation on Victoria's case. I said to her,
8 "Yes, we had a telephone conversation on 3rd August".
9 Dr Rossiter had some papers in her hand and she was
10 shuffling these papers. She then said, "Did I make
11 contact with you or did you make contact with me?", and
12 I said, "I made contact with you Dr Rossiter". She then
13 shuffled her papers a little bit more and said, "I do
14 not recollect the details of that conversation but I am
15 trying to formulate a chronology in my mind" and I said
16 no more after that.
17 MS HOYAL: I would like to ask you about your supervision on
18 15th November, which you will find at 06/259. You have
19 told us your point clear that you were reporting back on
20 the second strategy meeting that had taken place on
21 5th November.
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
23 MS HOYAL: If you look at point 3 there, "Permission to
24 interview the child on her own", could that only be
25 referable to the 5th November strategy meeting?
188
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it would have been because that
2 would have meant that I had not seen Victoria since the
3 initial referral in July.
4 MS HOYAL: If you look at the strategy meeting notes at
5 point 8, page 06/77 -- that is page 77 in bundle 6.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: 37?
7 MS HOYAL: 77, bundle 6. Can you see point 8?
8 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Point 8:
9 "Talked to child on her own with mother's
10 permission".
11 MS HOYAL: So that is consistent with it having been
12 discussed on the 15th November?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
14 MS HOYAL: If you look at the point 11, "Explore issues of
15 Anna's bed wetting and bereavement of father". If you
16 then go back to the contact sheet on page 259, do you
17 see point (iv)?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes.
19 MS HOYAL: "Discussed bed wetting with [something] ..."
20 MISS ARTHURWORREY: "GP".
21 MS HOYAL: That would not have been information that was
22 referrable to the first strategy meeting, would it?
23 MISS ARTHURWORREY: No, it would not.
24 MS HOYAL: If you look at point 5 on the same page:
25 "Refer to family centre. Bereavement counselling".
189
1 That would be consistent only with point 11 from the
2 second strategy meeting on page 077?
3 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
4 MS HOYAL: Which refers to exploring issues of Anna's bed
5 wetting and bereavement of father.
6 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct.
7 MS HOYAL: If you go back to the supervision note on 259,
8 point 8, "Complete decision of strategy meeting" and
9 point 9, "Work to be completed by 17th December", that
10 would only be consistent with the meeting on
11 5th November, would it not?
12 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is right, yes.
13 MS HOYAL: Now I would like you to look at the statement of
14 John Myrie, in bundle 45A, 150.684. If you look at the
15 third paragraph up from the bottom, beginning "I do
16 recall having a conversation with Lisa Arthurworrey in
17 February 2000," then you go right down to the second to
18 last line of that paragraph, does it read:
19 "Lisa Arthurworrey told me that she had seen
20 Angella Mairs remove the final sheet/summary"?
21 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
22 MS HOYAL: I would now like to look at witness bundle 3 at
23 page 32, please. Do you see paragraph 14?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, I do.
25 MS HOYAL: Does it begin "I recall a conversation with Lisa
190
1 on 28th February 2000 ..."?
2 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it does.
3 MS HOYAL: Is that the conversation with Valerie Robertson
4 that you told us about when you told her about
5 Angella Mairs removing the page from a file on the
6 28th February?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes, it is.
8 MS HOYAL: Was Valerie Roberts also somewhat intimidated by
9 Angella Mairs, do you know?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I know that before Angella supervised us
11 in November a number of us were quite anxious about her
12 supervising us but in actual fact I know that after
13 I was supervised by Angella and I know that after
14 Valerie Robertson was supervised by Angella we both felt
15 a sense of relief because we had not been given any
16 direction for a long time.
17 MS HOYAL: I would like to ask you about the conversation
18 with Rose Kozinos on 25th February. Do you have a clear
19 recollection of that conversation in which you told us
20 she began writing up the note in relation to the
21 retraction on 2nd November?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Yes I do.
23 MS HOYAL: Why does that stand out in your memory?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Because on the afternoon of -- on the
25 morning of the 25th February Rose Kozinos was not at
191
1 work when the referral came from the out of hours team.
2 I needed to wait for Rose to come back that afternoon so
3 I could discuss Victoria's file with her because she had
4 chaired both strategy meetings and she gave me my last
5 supervision. We were in an office and I said to her,
6 "Rose, your write-up is missing" and she just took a pen
7 and paper and wrote up that interview from memory.
8 MS HOYAL: Are you sure that that note was not written
9 before that date?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I am absolutely sure.
11 MS HOYAL: You have now been suspended since the end of
12 October last year, 13 months.
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
14 MS HOYAL: What did you like about the job that you did as
15 a social worker on behalf of children and families?
16 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I just generally enjoyed all aspects of
17 the work. Children and families was a vast area with
18 lots of learning opportunities and as a social worker
19 working in a busy office like North Tottenham, it would
20 be a learning experience every day. We would learn
21 something new every day and because we had so much work
22 to do, the hours would go by really fast and it was just
23 very satisfying.
24 MS HOYAL: Would you like to be able to return to work, not
25 necessarily in Haringey?
192
1 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would like to return to work, yes.
2 MS HOYAL: You mentioned a work schedule and I think you
3 will find it in bundle 29 at 045. It covers the period
4 from November 1999 through to the end of December.
5 29/045-046. Take mine if there is a problem. Is that
6 the work schedule you were referring to earlier today?
7 MISS ARTHURWORREY: It is.
8 MS HOYAL: Why would you have acquired so much time off
9 in lieu?
10 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Because I was working on a case which
11 involved care proceedings and also involved a prebirth
12 case conference. That took up a significant amount of
13 my time, particularly in the months September/October.
14 MS HOYAL: What time would you normally arrive at work?
15 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I would usually arrive at work around
16 9.30 am.
17 MS HOYAL: How late might you stay?
18 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I have left London before at about 9.30
19 and driven back to Luton.
20 MS HOYAL: So you were working considerably in excess of
21 your scheduled hours?
22 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Absolutely, yes.
23 MS HOYAL: Why did you do that?
24 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Basically there was a procedure for
25 social workers with regards to TOIL. That meant filling
193
1 out another form and first of all social workers did not
2 really have time to fill out these forms because it was
3 just another paperwork exercise, and secondly my work
4 commitments would not allow me to take my TOIL because
5 I had cases to progress.
6 MS HOYAL: And some of the spot visits you told us about to
7 Manning's home, they occurred on your way to or from
8 work?
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
10 MS HOYAL: So you were working considerably in excess of the
11 hours because the work had to be done for the benefit of
12 the children and families that you were working with?
13 MISS ARTHURWORREY: That is correct, yes.
14 MS HOYAL: And at the time were there many cases that
15 appeared as urgent if not far more urgent than
16 Victoria's?
17 MISS ARTHURWORREY: I had lots of heavy child protection
18 cases.
19 MS HOYAL: Thank you very much.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you indeed Miss Hoyal. I am grateful
21 to you.
22 Miss Arthurworrey you have covered a lot of ground,
23 no doubt you feel that over the last couple of days.
24 You will appreciate that I need to reflect on some of
25 the things, particularly the things that Mr Garnham went
194
1 through toward the end and Miss Hoyal has just gone
2 through, so I will need to ask you some questions on
3 Monday morning.
4 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Okay.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: So we will adjourn until Monday morning but
6 you will remain under oath. That means you should not
7 be discussing your evidence with anyone and that
8 includes the media.
9 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Okay.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: And your advocate of course.
11 MISS ARTHURWORREY: Okay.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we will adjourn until
13 10 o'clock on Monday morning. Thank you very much.
14 (3.07 pm)
15 (Hearing adjourned until 10 am on Monday,
16 26th November 2001)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
|
