 |
|||
|
"Pathologies" and destruction of evidence The two versions of the Corner/Esler report The vice chancellor's behaviour |
Thus far the story can be summarised as follows: * University of St Andrews condemns its own 'pathological' Department of Social Anthropology. A little detail... In September 2001 the Executive of the University of St Andrews produced a report into what they termed 'pathologies' in one of the university's departments. They claimed to have 'persuasive evidence... documented and on file' for these pathologies. When asked to produce this evidence the University first went silent and then claimed that they had destroyed it. Because of this and a series of other fundamental deceptions I went to the Employment Tribunals alleging constructive dismissal (effectively breach of contract) - see my witness statement. It took almost a year for the case to open, another year for it to be heard, and a further eight months to produce the verdict. When the 78-page verdict finally appeared all but one line of the evidence of my supporting witnesses had simply disappeared. Much of the verdict parrotted the University's final submissions which were a tissue of misrepresentations. An appeal was made to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which subsequently made an order for a transcript of the evidence of my main witness to be produced. However, when my barrister attempted to discuss this evidence, she was prevented from doing so by the very same judge who had ordered it - the 'Honourable' Lady Smith - who went on to dismiss the appeal. Immediately following the appeal hearing it emerged that the Chairman of the original tribunal and signatory of the judgment (Mr Mark Sischy) had been forced to retire because of an alcohol-related 'condition' which interfered with his ability to make judgments. This is the second time in his career that Mr Sischy has been obliged to leave his position because of this problem. This fact was clearly known to the 'Honourable' Lady Smith and significant others in both the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunals but was concealed from me and my lawyers. In fact so much was missing from the original verdict that it appeared to have been written by someone who did not attend the hearings. The President of the Scottish Employment Tribunals (Mr Colin Milne) has written to the author of this page assuring him that the judgment was written by Mr Sischy, but whether Mr Sischy was the sole author must remain a matter of doubt given the problem which has led to his early retirement. Whoever is the author of the judgment, it is clear is that the Employment Tribunals perverted the course of justice. The only plausible explanation for this is that they did so to protect the University of St Andrews which had behaved scandalously and then lied repeatedly to the tribunal through its barrister. What is also clear is that this perversity has since been deliberately concealed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which has since refused a review of its verdict on the grounds that no 'error of law' has been advanced. If burying evidence to ensure that one side wins is not an error of law, the law must be very peculiar in Scotland... It is hardly surprising that the University of St Andrews attempted to suppress this site. The story continues at A right royal university... "The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality" |