Couple who were attacked by NHS hospital goons as they left with their premature daughter win compensation
How low can the NHS go?
A couple who were left with bruises and black eyes after hospital security staff assaulted them as they tried to take their newborn daughter home have been paid £7,000 in compensation after the horrific attack.
David and Beverley Fish spent six months anxiously waiting at their daughter Ellie-Suzanne’s bedside after she was born just 23 weeks into her mother’s pregnancy.
But when the couple, from Fishponds, Bristol, tried to leave the Bristol Children’s Hospital with their little girl after a consultant in charge said they could go home, they were halted by four security staff.
The couple claim they were jumped on and, when Mrs Fish passed her baby, who was still attached to oxygen, to a friend was rammed into a fire door.
David was left with bruising on his back and bloodshot eyes and Beverley was left with a black eye from the incident.
David, 47, said: ‘We were told by a doctor on the ward that we were going to be allowed to take Ellie home overnight and then bring her back in the morning. ‘It would have been the first time she had ever come home, or out of hospital. ‘We spoke to the doctor there and he said it was absolutely fine and we could take her home now so we got everything up together. ‘When we walked out we saw the security guards coming up but thought nothing of it.’
Ellie-Suzanne was born weighing just 1Ib 4oz in September 2007 after Beverley went into premature labour. The youngster was initially given a ten to 15 per cent chance of survival and spent the first six months of her life in the neonatal intensive care unit at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, before being transferred to Bristol Children’s Hospital for an operation on her stomach.
It was after surgery at the city centre hospital that Mr and Mrs Fish say the consultant in charge of her care told them they could finally take their daughter home. But another consultant involved in her care disagreed and, as the couple attempted to leave the hospital with their baby daughter, security staff tried to stop them.
David said: ‘As Beverley and I tried to walk out, four guards stopped us and we were injured after they tried to keep us at the hospital.’ Police were called and later took photographs of the injuries the couple suffered.
The couple sued the NHS and David has now received a settlement, with £7,000 compensation, after the legal team acting on behalf of University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust admitted liability for the injuries he suffered in March 2008.
They said it was not until 5am the next day that they saw each other again, after spending the night in separate police cells. After the incident they were prevented from visiting their daughter for two weeks.
The couple, who also have three sons, David, 23, Martyn, 21, and Joshua, 16, and daughters Stacey, 26 and Abbie, 19, had to send relatives and friends in to visit their daughter during that time.
When they were allowed back the couple had to sign an agreement which insisted that their visits had to be monitored.
Beverley said that after the incident she became anxious. She said: ‘When I first saw my face afterwards I could not believe it. ‘My bridge was knocked out of my mouth and my face was black for months afterwards.’
David and Beverley said they had previously raised concerns about the care of their daughter while she was in ward 38 at the hospital.
Ellie still requires oxygen overnight and has other complex needs but can walk and can talk, which her parents said they were warned not to expect. She has now started at a mainstream school.
A spokesman for the NHS Litigation Authority, which handles legal matters on behalf of health trusts, said: ‘There was a claim made of assault by security staff. After an investigation we admitted that claim and compensation was paid.’
A spokeswoman for the city centre hospital trust said: ‘The NHS Litigation Authority has settled Mr Fish’s civil claim for personal injury against University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust as a result of an incident in March 2008.’
She would not respond to the family’s allegations about the way the security team had handled the situation or complaints over other aspects of her care at the hospital prior to the incident. The trust also declined to say whether its security procedures had changed since the incident.
Tom Jones of Thompsons Solicitors, which handled the case for Mr and Mrs Fish, said: ‘Civil proceedings for personal injury (which in Mr Fish’s case have been successful and in Mrs Fish’s case have yet to be concluded) were started. ‘The allegations of negligence included that the Trust failed to control or adequately train employees for whom they were responsible.’
Where’s the NHS when you need them?
A four-year-old boy with cerebral palsy has enjoyed a ride on his bicycle for the first time after his parents raised £45,000 for him to undergo a life-changing operation available only in the U.S.
Just weeks ago, Ross Kerr could never have dreamed of playing so energetically as his movement was restricted after a stroke in the womb.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with hemiplegic cerebral palsy, which caused motor neuron damage to the left side of his brain affecting his movement.
While temporary treatments to help his walking were available in Britain, his parents Naomi Miller and Ross Kerr hoped an operation only available in the U.S. would change his life.
They launched a fund-raising drive in February so Ross Jr could undergo selective dorsal rhizotomy surgery to improve his walking and perhaps even enable him to kick a football.
After two operations Ross, from Baillieston, Glasgow, is now back home and beginning to enjoy playing like any other child.
His mother is still amazed by how far the youngster has come in such a short time. Miss Miller, 22, said: ‘Ross pedaled towards me on a bike for the first time – and I knew it had all been worthwhile. ‘To see him do what other children take for granted was a special moment.
‘There were times when I thought we were never going to make it, but to see Ross today thank goodness we did. ‘It has already changed our lives. Ross is now out playing and running about. He is beginning to do new things every day.
‘For months we ran car boot sales and bag-packed at supermarkets – it became our whole life.’ It took the family five months to reach its target of £45,000.
They then headed to St Louis Children’s Hospital in Missouri.
A three-hour operation to help flatten Ross’s right foot was carried out on July 12. Miss Miller said: ‘It was an anxious time when Ross was going through the operation. But after more than three hours, Ross was in recovery. ‘We were given hourly updates by phone from theatre to tell us how things were going. ‘More than three hours later doctors told us everything went OK and Ross was being taken to recovery.
‘Then came the hard part of keeping him lying flat for five days. He wasn’t allowed out of bed or to sit up.’ On day five, Ross was allowed to sit in a chair and was taken round the hospital garden in a wheelchair.
Miss Miller said: ‘We were waiting to see when Ross would be allowed to walk. Physios decided it was time for him to stand on the sixth day. ‘He got out of his chair and with no support stood up straight and from that day on has gone from strength to strength.
‘Doctors decided Ross had to have a second operation to lengthen his heel chord, which cost more than £7,000. It gave him a lot better movement and has helped his progress. ‘We were frantically getting relatives to fundraise all over again back home and we made it.
‘We were contacted by the Arygle Tavern in Baillieston, whose customers raised £3,000. We could never have done any of this without people’s amazing generosity.’
Ross now requires two weeks of intensive physio and has to wear a foot support for several weeks, but after that he shouldn’t need more than regular physio sessions.
His mother said: ‘If he hadn’t had the operation he would have had a lifetime of splints and botox therapy for his muscles. Now he has a real chance at the future he deserves.’
British teachers could be fired for refusing to endorse homosexual marriage
Teachers who refuse to endorse gay marriage in the classroom could face the sack under controversial Government reforms, a legal expert has warned.
Schools will be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff that wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings, it is claimed.
Aidan O’Neill, a senior QC and expert on religious freedom and human rights, also warned that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will have no right to withdraw their child from lessons.
In a report, he said that any decision to redefine marriage would have far-reaching consequences for schools, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.
The most serious impact is likely to be felt in the church where vicars and priests conducting religious marriage ceremonies could be taken to court for refusing to carry out a gay wedding, he said.
The conclusions – in legal advice commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage – comes amid continuing fall-out over Government plans to tear up the centuries-old law on marriage.
Ministers launched a consultation on proposals to legalise homosexual weddings earlier this year. David Cameron has said he is committed to pushing through the change by 2015.
The plan is being backed by the Liberal Democrats and many senior Conservatives, although it has prompted a backlash among some backbenchers and Christian groups.
Last month, the Roman Catholic Church had a letter read in all 500 Catholic parishes in Scotland urging churchgoers to oppose attempts to “redefine” marriage north of the border.
Sharon James, a Coalition for Marriage spokeswoman, said the proposed law change would have a serious effect on schools, representing an “unprecedented assault on the rights of parents”.
“This is a dangerous path to go down and one that should be resisted,” she said.
“The redefinition of marriage would ride roughshod over a person’s right to support marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman, whether that person be a teacher, a parent, a foster carer or a marriage registrar. The only winners from a change in marriage law will be lawyers.”
Mr O’Neill – based at Matrix Chambers – has analysed the effect that any change in the legal basis of marriage would have on a series of public institutions.
He outlined a fictional scenario in which a Christian teacher is asked to use a book called King & King, a story of a prince who marries a man, and produce a play based on the tale.
The QC suggested that any refusal to comply would be “grounds for her dismissal from employment” because of a legal ruling that religious belief cannot be used by employees “to demand changes in their conditions of their employment”.
Mr O’Neill also warned that parents who object to gay marriage being taught would have no right to withdraw their child from lessons for religious conscience reasons.
“If gay marriage is introduced, the school would be in its own legal right to refuse the wishes of the child’s parents, arguing it is under a legal obligation of its own to promote equality – whatever the cost,” he said.
In the report, he also claimed that Government promises to protect churches and other faiths who object to gay marriage would be meaningless.
Mr O’Neill insisted that vicars or priests would be powerless to stop same-sex couples demanding the same weddings as hetrosexuals under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Churches would be in a stronger legal position if they were to stop conducting weddings altogether – bring to an end more than a thousand years of tradition, he suggested.
“Churches might indeed better protect themselves against the possibility of any such litigation by deciding not to provide marriage services at all, since there could be no complaint then of discrimination in their provision of services as between same sex and opposite sex couples,” he said.
British PM Fells Green Politics
Has a political era so recent ever seemed so far away? Britain just before the crash was, at least to judge from the way its ruling elites talked, evolving into a post-material society. A decade and a half of uninterrupted growth and low inflation had slowly put economic discourse to sleep. All major parties tacitly accepted a mixed economy – more egalitarian than the US, more free-market than Europe – and ever higher public spending too. They differed at the margins, of course, and played up footling quarrels like ham actors, but their real focus was migrating to other, softer issues: culture, lifestyle and, above all, the environment.
The face and voice of this holiday from history is now the prime minister. With huskies in train, David Cameron began his leadership of the Conservative party with a visit to a Norwegian glacier threatened by global warming in 2006. The gesture helped to soften his party’s image at the time but, as a statement of priorities, it has not aged well. Neither has his ethical finger-wagging at business, or his insistence that “GWB” (general wellbeing) was as important as gross domestic product, or, as he now knows painfully well, his environmentalist objections to a third runway at Heathrow. Far from asking how to preserve and hasten economic growth, he seemed animated by the question of how society could remain sane and healthy despite economic growth.
Recession put paid to this strain of Tory modernisation, which was always more modish than truly modern. After rebranding themselves as guardians of Mother Earth, the party had to scurry to re-rebrand as flinty custodians of the ruined public finances. The undulations of internal Tory politics have played a part too. Mr Cameron’s mania for greenery and wellbeing was ignited by Steve Hilton, then his closest adviser. But Mr Hilton grew more Thatcherite after the crash and in any case George Osborne, the hawkish chancellor of the exchequer, gradually became the prevailing counsel in Mr Cameron’s ear. Then came the election of an unashamedly pro-business generation of MPs two years ago.
It has not eluded the chancellor’s notice that the percentage of voters who rank the environment as an important issue has fallen to low single figures. In the face of resistance from his governing partners, the Liberal Democrats, he is trying to prune the coalition’s green policies, especially those likely to impose costs on ordinary people. His efforts to keep fuel duty down betray his determination to avoid his party being painted as high-minded rich kids indifferent to the living standards of ordinary people. Mr Cameron himself has not given a major speech on the environment since becoming prime minister in 2010. Given Britain’s economic and fiscal plight, it is hard to blame him.
His cabinet reshuffle last Tuesday fanned this bonfire of the inanities. A change of transport secretary has made it easier for the government to contemplate a U-turn on its silly promise to abjure that third runway. Owen Paterson, perhaps the most conservative member of the cabinet, has moved to environment. Michael Fallon and Matthew Hancock – men never much taken with the more esoteric excesses of Tory modernisation – will champion deregulation in a Department for Business that has done too little of it. And there is more to come. The autumn should see a new round of policies to make the UK leaner and more competitive: looser labour laws, for example, and progress in the government’s mission to quicken the lugubrious planning process
However, businesses would be wise to view this continuing shift from pre-crash absent-mindedness to a more economically hard-headed era without great excitement. Nothing is being proposed that will make their lives radically easier anytime soon. The only thing that can – a soothing of economic tumult abroad, and especially in the eurozone – is not in the gift of any government to deliver. And although Mr Cameron can tinker with his personnel, policies still have to be signed off by the Lib Dems. They are girding themselves to resist any watering down of the government’s environmental programme.
Global Warming as theatre
What a neat idea: Stage a dramatic monologue in a theatre with tickets sold to true believers and you have no critics to answer! But as the commentator below says: “There is nothing explicitly new in this analysis”. And where have we heard this before? “We face a future in which billions will starve” Paul Ehrlich, give a bow! Same old, same old
Stephen Emmott is an unlikely candidate for a star of a sell-out London theatre hit. He currently uses crutches after recently losing a disc in his spine and until last month he had never trod the boards. Yet the 52-year-old academic has just completed a majestic run at the Royal Court. For the past three weeks, he has filled the seats of the company’s Jerwood Theatre Upstairs with audiences, mostly young, flocking to see his solo performances of Ten Billion, a brutal but careful dissection of the likely impact of humanity’s swelling numbers on our planet.
Forget the hunt for the Higgs boson, Emmott tells audiences. Scientists may think that this was the greatest experiment ever performed, but it is nothing compared to the one humanity is now carrying out on our own planet as we pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, melt icecaps, destroy precious ecosystems and eradicate species in their thousands. The end result is “one of the most disturbing evenings I have ever spent in a theatre,” wrote the Guardian’s Michael Billington.
We face a future in which billions will starve, he states. Britain, which could come off relatively lightly when 6C rises in global temperature take effect, will be turned into a military outpost dedicated to preventing waves of immigrants reaching our shores.
So can we do anything to halt the devastation that lies ahead? Emmott asks as he reaches the end of his show. “In truth, I think we are already f*cked,” is his answer. Then he quotes the response he got when he asked one of his younger colleagues what measures he planned to take to ward off the worst effects of the mayhem that lies ahead. “Teach my son how to use a gun,” he was told. Cormac McCarthy would be proud.
Emmott merely stands in front of a desk within a set that is a recreation of his own office, right down to the slowly ageing tangerine that he has left in one corner. “I am a scientist, not an actor – as will quickly become clear,” he announces. Then he proceeds with his analysis with the help of some neat video graphics. The result is more lecture than play, though I would argue that this is a perfectly reasonable theatrical mechanism, one that has been deployed recently in London by the Tricycle theatre in its staging of the public inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case and by the Finborough theatre in its depiction of recent events in Syria.
In Emmott’s case, his main concern is the ecological costs that underlie our daily lives: the billions of barrels of oil drilled each year, the billions of passenger miles flown and billions of tonnes of carbon pumped into the atmosphere. Two years ago, Russia halted its grain exports after its harvest failed. As a result, there were food riots in many countries, including several in the Middle East. The Arab Spring erupted in their wake. Today, an even greater harvest failure is threatened in the United States, where scorching temperatures have devastated crops. The implications for civil unrest across the planet are profound. Add to this the prospect of even greater temperature rises, triggered by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases that are in turn fed by our undiminished urge to burn fossil fuels and you begin to get a feel for the troubles we face. Populations are soaring but our capacity to feed ourselves is dwindling as the heat is turned up on our planet.
There is nothing explicitly new in this analysis. What is fresh is its measured, uninterrupted exposition. Emmott remains remarkably calm throughout his performance although you can still sense his concealed fury at our failure to take action. There are no Paxmans to quibble over details and no climate gainsayers to make arcane or inaccurate objections. And that is the real lesson of Ten Billion. Without the clamorous voices of climate change deniers who constantly question the minutiae of scientists’ research or cherry-pick data, Emmott has shown that it is possible to make a straightforward, telling demonstration of the dreadful problems we face. We need a lot more sober, pithy work like this.
Emmott believes it is too late now to prevent our planet burning. Others, myself included, believe there is still time to take action. Making sure that the message of Ten Billion is not lost would be a very good starting point.
Fancy having a judge in your living room?
British courts are treating competent adults as vulnerable beings who need state protection. That’s bad for liberty
Thanks to the English High Court, state policing of personal relationships in Britain is on the rise.
For centuries, the High Court has claimed an ‘inherent jurisdiction’ to take care of the persons and property of those who could not look after themselves. This power covers minors and wards of court, as well as adults who lack mental capacity. It originates in an ancient Crown Prerogative, going back to feudal times (1). But in a little-noticed legal development, some judges of the Family Division have started to claim an ‘inherent jurisdiction’ over the lives of adults in full possession of their faculties.
This is a disturbing trend. These rulings are given at private hearings. Parliament, the public, and indeed the Ministry of Justice, are none the wiser. The problem, at base, is a constitutional one. Our judges are unelected, and are not supposed to make laws. That is parliament’s function.
Parliament has said that people become adults at age 18 (2). Most people think that the point of reaching adulthood is that you get to decide where you live, and who your friends are. If you make unwise decisions, that is unfortunate, but it is not a basis for the authorities to intervene. However, last March, in a case called ‘DL’, the Court of Appeal said that the High Court is entitled to disregard adult decision-making (3).
What was the case about? DL is a man in his fifties, who lived with his very elderly parents. His mother, who was disabled, received some services from their local authority. There was discord between DL and the authority. It alleged that he assaulted his parents. It claimed that he was trying to persuade them to transfer the house to him; was restricting their use of household appliances, such as the washing machine, and was ordering carers about.
DL’s parents did not agree, and flatly refused to take any action against their son. Everyone accepted that the parents had legal capacity. On the face of it, the life which they and their son had chosen to lead together was no one else’s business.
But the local authority decided it was time for a judge to police the scene. It got the president of the Family Division to issue a raft of injunctions against DL, at a private hearing to which DL was not invited. This included such seemingly petty matters as forbidding DL to ‘persuade’ his mother to move to a care home.
A social-care expert was then sent to interview the parents. He claimed (without meeting DL) that DL was unduly influencing his parents, and that their ability to make balanced and considered decisions was compromised. However, he accepted that DL’s mother was able to give instructions which reflected her own wishes, though they were subject to DL’s influence. The father resisted pressure from DL. Both parents understood the advice which was given to them.
So far, so what? Many families have a dominant or influential figure, to whom others prefer to defer. That is their choice. There is nothing inherently wrong with ‘influence’. And anyway, why should family members have to make ‘balanced and considered’ decisions in their personal dealings with each other?
DL challenged the court’s jurisdiction, using the simple argument that, because they all had capacity to decide things for themselves, the court had no business interfering. He lost resoundingly. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal claimed that the judges were being ‘facilitative’, not dictatorial, and were just helping the parents regain their autonomy of decision-making.
But there is nothing facilitative about a court injunction which tells people what they can and cannot say to each other in private, on pain of imprisonment. Injunctions are coercive. There is nothing facilitative about requiring elderly people to present themselves and their private lives for assessment by an outside expert. This is about as intrusive as it gets. Underlying this decision, and others like it, is an intolerance of others’ lifestyles, and a determination to corral them into making what others see as the ‘right’ choices.
In an earlier case in 2004, which the judges cited, a local authority claimed that the behaviour of a young woman’s father towards her had caused a breakdown in her mental health. The judge there reasoned that, because courts have powers to intervene in the lives of children to protect them, therefore the courts must have similar powers over the lives of adults (4), This is illogical. If the father had really caused harm to his adult daughter, she could sue him for personal injury or harassment. If she chose not to, that was her choice.
In another case in 2005, a local authority feared that a deaf young Asian woman called SA, who had just turned 18, might be taken out of the country and married without proper consent (5). The judge accepted that SA had capacity to marry. But in a convoluted and confusing judgment, he said that even though she had capacity, the court could make orders restrictive of her liberty, for example by limiting access to her passport. He said: ‘The inherent jurisdiction is no longer correctly to be understood as confined to cases where a vulnerable adult is disabled by mental incapacity from making his own decision.’
This is another leap of logic. The threshold for official intervention is no longer a person’s lack of mental capacity: the basis for intervention now is their (perceived) vulnerability.
Some paragraphs later, the judge in the case of SA announced: ‘It is likely to be easier to persuade the court that there is a case calling for investigation where the adult is apparently vulnerable than where the adult is not on the face of it vulnerable.’ So an adult who is not vulnerable is, theoretically at least, also subject to judicial enquiry. Finally, he said: ‘The court has a positive duty to assist SA to enter into what will for her be the “right” marriage.’ This does sound as though SA would only be allowed to marry someone of whom officialdom approved.
In a third case in 2010, an authority wanted to force a married woman with learning difficulties to use contraception, against her and her husband’s express wishes, if need be by involving the police! (6) The authority claimed that the husband was the dominant partner in their relationship. This may well have been true, but so what? The woman’s capacity to marry was not disputed.
This judge, to do him credit, baulked at the local authority’s totalitarian proposal. He did, however, decide that the wife lacked mental capacity to decide matters of contraception. This conclusion could be seen as a fudge (not least because it suggests she lacked capacity to have sex in the first place).
Judges of the Family Division of the High Court have been seduced by what Frank Furedi has called ‘the fatalistic sociology of the precautionary principle’. This views all human beings as innately powerless, vulnerable and at risk (7). And if to be at risk is a condition of life, then everyone becomes a legitimate target of judicial intervention and protection. This refusal by the courts to acknowledge adults as self-determining agents has ominous implications for liberty and the law.
Feminist fail: 75% of new British mothers would stay at home to bring up their child if they could afford to
Three out of four new mothers would stay at home to bring up their child if they could afford to, a report said yesterday. A traditional family – with a breadwinning father and a full-time mother – remains the ideal for the vast majority of women, the study found.
The conclusion flies in the face of the assumption among politicians, civil servants and academics that working is good for mothers and that what families really want is more subsidised childcare.
According to the research, six out of ten mothers who return to work after having a baby do so only to pay off debt or ease financial pressures. Just one in seven said they wanted to develop their career.
The findings, produced from a survey commissioned by uSwitch of 1,008 mothers, back up a series of opinion polls in recent years, all of which showed that a high proportion of new mothers would prefer to stay at home.
No similar government or academic analysis of the wishes of mothers has been published, however.
Ann Robinson, of uSwitch, said: ‘At a time when women face the biggest squeeze on employment, new mums are being forced to return to the workplace because of financial pressures. ‘The high cost of living coupled with the often crippling cost of a mortgage means that many households today need two incomes to get by.’
The poll found that 75 per cent of new mothers said they would have stayed at home ‘if money was no object’. Only 12 per cent did not want to be full-time mothers. A further 13 per cent replied ‘don’t know’.
Of those who did return to jobs, 55 per cent said they did so because money was tight and 3 per cent said they had to go back because pregnancy had left them in serious debt.
Among those who gave other reasons, one in five said they needed something in their lives other than their home and baby and 14 per cent wanted to continue their career.
Mothers also gave estimates of the extra costs their families were facing because of having a baby. The typical estimate was that family bills rose by just over £2,500, but one in ten believed the annual added costs to be more than £5,000.
Honesty not encouraged among British jurors
A juror told a court his homophobic and racist views meant he could not give a defendant a fair trial.
In a letter written to the judge after he was selected from a shortlist to serve in a case, the man claimed his extreme views ‘against homosexuals and black/foreign people’ made it impossible for him to be impartial.
Last night an investigation was under way after the judge reluctantly agreed to dismiss him from the jury and referred the case to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.
The letter was made public after he was selected to serve on an assault and dangerous driving trial at Southampton Crown Court. Presiding Judge Gary Burrell QC read his note out in open court.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has since been taken off the jury and threatened with prosecution for contempt of court.
This is because Judge Burrell said he could not be sure if he had written the letter just to get out of it.
The man, who was escorted from the court, was warned he now faced prosecution under the Contempt of Court act for failing to serve on a jury.
British policewomen fired over private conversation
Two female police officers have been sacked after a colleague recorded them having a conversation in which one likened black people to gorillas and monkeys.
Special Constable Rosanna Garofalo and WPC Joanna Sugda were in the changing room at Islington Police Station in March when a colleague left an iPhone on record in her locker at work.
When the recording was played back, Garofalo was heard saying that black people ‘all look the f*****g same. They all look like monkeys.’
A disciplinary hearing heard how the officer said she could never sleep with a black man and that her boyfriend wouldn’t be interested in black women as they ‘look like gorillas’.
Describing another officer, she added that she had ‘a face like a gorilla’, that she was ‘f*****g ugly’.
Sugda, 32, is believed to be heard laughing in the background after exclaiming: ‘you cant say that.’
The recording, which happened on March 9, was handed over to senior staff and both officers were sacked for gross misconduct at a disciplinary hearing on August 29. Garofalo has launched a claim for unfair dismissal.