The evidence of Dr Cross

Now it is the turn of the registrant at the centre of attention. Dr Cross is invited to take the witness seat, and is questioned first by his own lawyer, who establishes that he is who he says he is, and adds the qualifications he has, before launching into the detail. First, Mr Tyme establishes that Dr Cross made the restaurant reservation for the dinner on the night in question and then drew out the details of the accreditation process. In this way we learn that the relevant papers are received about twenty-eight days before the meeting, and web-based documents are consulted before attending the meeting. Was there anything special about this particular meeting? Yes, the accreditation was so close to the HPC takeover that it made sense to conduct the visit with this in mind. However, under the old scheme it was quite normal for conditions or recommendations to be made in the accreditation process, but under the new regime this would mean that the course would not be recognized as one which could pass students onto the HPC register, which would be disastrous for the students and for the university. It was therefore absolutely essential that the university avoid such a catastrophe—they had to pass first time. Dr Cross

… So there was an onus upon us to not only bear this in mind, but to be on one level extra-rigorous so as not give the impression that we had not given it due consideration in order to help out in a collegiate sort of way. So there was an interesting situation of being hyper-vigilant in relation to issues and being absolutely satisfied there was nothing wrong. I think that responsibility had been passed down to the course, programme providers because the documentation was exceptional. The best I had ever seen.

102Then Mr Tyme established that Dr Cross had accomplished about twenty such visits in his career, and that he liked to conduct them in a developmental way, which is to say

… never adversarial, always with a view to trying to assist a provider to deliver the best possible service to the students … it has very significant consequences, it is absolutely formal. I think there are two perspectives that one can take when one is interviewing or evaluating a particular product. Some people believe that you should put people under pressure to see how they perform under pressure. There is another camp, which I belong to, which is you should make people as relaxed as possible to get the best out of them. So my view is that I would try and put the accreditation team at as great an ease as possible so they could tell their best story.

Now for the problematic question of alcohol: Mr Tyme

Now, going back to the pre-meeting on 8 June, on your arrival at the hotel had you consumed any alcohol?

Dr Cross

Yes, I had. I had been to lunch. That was prior to setting off from London to Bristol. I recall very clearly having two glasses of wine at lunch with two colleagues who were both working half a day, and had arranged to finish work and have lunch. Then we all went our separate ways.

Mr Tyme

It has been said on your arrival you were drunk, references to slurred speech et cetera, what do you say to that?

Dr Cross

I do not believe that I was drunk. I know precisely how much I drank. It would be extraordinary to be drunk after two glasses of wine.

103Mr Tyme

… Mr Hughes raised some concerns about a drink problem, an alcohol problem, are you able to comment on that?

Dr Cross

Yes. I find the accusation extraordinary. I find it extraordinary on a personal level, in that I do not believe I gave him any indication that was the case, and on a professional level I find it extraordinary that [he] could come to a diagnosis, which is in fact what it was, on the basis of a brief conversation.

Mr Tyme

How would you describe your relationship with Owen Hughes? Had you had much contact with him before the 8 June?

Dr Cross

I recall teaching him a very long time ago. I recall teaching him about ten to twelve years ago. He was a somewhat unremarkable student, but really no contact since his graduation from the university except where we may have sat in similar committees. But, again, quite large, so not really a relationship as such.

Mr Tyme

To paraphrase his evidence, if I was to describe him as your confidant, what would you say to that?

Dr Cross

I would not describe my relationship with him as being a confidant or someone whom I was close to, no.

Mr Tyme

But someone that you could tell very personal matters to?

Dr Cross

No, absolutely not.

Mr Tyme

Mr Hughes in his evidence said you told him about your personal relationship; do you recall that?

Dr Cross

I recall that evening very well, and, no, I did not discuss my personal relationship. I believe he is probably talking about my relationship with my partner and I certainly did not discuss my relationship with Mr Hughes.

Mr Russen

Was that challenged?

Ms Kemp

No. It was not challenged—he was not drunk either. (pause)

Mr Russen

He has presumably gone, has he?

Ms Dwomoh-Bonsu

Yes.

The point disrupts the proceedings—could this have been ironed out in the preliminary process? Is it not the responsibility of the Investigating 104Committee to prove the case—that is, to know the strength of the evidence, the value of their witness? Surely someone would have asked what kind of evidence there was that the registrant was actually drunk and then cross-questioned their own witness? What about the Panel and the Legal Assessor—is this not a point at which they might notice that something may have been wrong with the process that led to the hearing? It is the responsibility of the HPC to prove their charge, yet Ms Kemp takes advantage of the situation and actually manages to present it as a problem for her, which rather goes against the idea that it is her responsibility to make a case. Ms Kemp

My note does not refer to those matters including the fact that Dr Cross states he was not drunk. That certainly was not put to Mr Hughes. If I may say, it does present me with some difficulties where a witness’s evidence has not been challenged as it should be because I am now not in a position to recall Dr Hughes so that those matters can be put. I would certainly rely on my closing submissions on the fact that these matters have not been put to Mr Hughes and he has not had an opportunity to comment. That will be something that I would ask you to take into account.

But in fairness to Dr Cross it is important that he has every opportunity to present his case and to put those matters to Mr Hughes if his evidence is directly challenged. So it is perhaps a matter for Dr Cross and his representative to consider the difficulty there is that Dr Cross is now giving evidence and should not in normal course speak to his representative either.

Mr Tyme

… to that extent even if I had put to Mr Hughes was he drunk, he is going to say presumably yes. You have heard from Molly Ross. She has given her account of his demeanour, slurred speech et cetera. I do not think we can take it much further … Dr Cross has said he was not, or he had two glasses of wine …

Miss Reggiori

I think the issue, and I am sure I will be corrected by both Ms Kemp and Mr Russen if I am wrong, is you appear to be putting in chief to Dr Cross matters which impact on Mr Hughes’s evidence which were not put to Mr Hughes in cross-examination, like, for example, 105whether or not Dr Cross confided in Mr Hughes about his personal relationship which I do not recall being put to [Mr Hughes] in cross-examination.

Mr Tyme

It may be the manner in which he came out with it. At that stage I would not have had any instruction on that specific point. It came out, he referred to issues of a personal nature. So the question I asked Dr Cross is whether or not he can be described as a confidant.

Miss Reggiori

Mr Russen, can you assist us with this.

Mr Russen

I am sorry, I instigated this interruption in Dr Cross’s evidence and one thing we should not do is throw Dr Cross off balance by interrupting the flow of his evidence. But there is a general expectation that where a witness against a party gives certain evidence which is not accepted by that party that the respects in which they do not accept it are put fairly clearly to the witness so they can deal with it because it is only in that way that the fact-deciding tribunal, namely the Panel here, can come to a view about it … to be perfectly blunt, it opens the door to Miss Kemp …

Dr Cross

Could I make a brief intervention, but just to say that I genuinely believe my opportunity to review what was said would be now and not to interrupt at that time. I apologise if I misconstrued.

Ms Kemp

It is not a matter that I think I can take any further. I think I have expressed my position. I will refer in the closing submissions. It is obviously a matter for both Dr Cross and Mr Tyme as to what they wish to do.

Ms Reggiori

I think the Panel will need to retire for a couple of minutes.

Mr Russen

Yes. Ordinarily, Dr Cross, once a witness starts giving their evidence they should not be communicating with their representative. That is the general rule because there is a rule for all witnesses, whether they are Registrants or any other as you probably heard Miss Reggiori say to the earlier witnesses, they should not be talking about the subject matter of the evidence. But I think that it has been accepted that for these purposes if you wish to speak to Mr Tyme about this nobody is going to object.

106(The Panel retired from 2.42 pm until 3.15 pm)

I have edited out a lot of the repetition and verbiage to leave the essence, but even so it is clear that there is a great deal of agitation. It is also interesting to note that Mr Hughes has left without knowing the outcome, without hearing what Dr Cross had to say—this hearing is triggered by his letter, after all. Miss Reggiori

I think unless anyone wants to raise anything [we will] just continue to hear Dr Cross’s evidence.

Mr Tyme

Yes.

Mr Tyme now takes Dr Cross to the question of how the conflict played out. Did it happen, did you say the things Mr Hughes complains of? Yes. Why? Dr Cross

[Line 14 Page 53] … they were absolutely jovial, silly, obviously now very misplaced. But I was in fact teasing Mr Hughes … I thought it would have been obvious that this was silliness.

Mr Tyme

Mr Hughes said in his evidence that he took it quite seriously and asked you to stop or control your behaviour—do you recall that?

Dr Cross

I do … my interpretation [was that] he said this was wrong, was that he understood this to be a joke and he was bored with the joke—.

Mr Tyme

Mr Hughes referred to a sensible discussion he had with you during the course of the evening at some point, rational discussion, can you recall a rational discussion?

Dr Cross

My perception was that all our discussions were sensible or rational apart from when I was in effect teasing him. We did talk about careers and career progression.

Mr Tyme

Mr Hughes described your behaviour as uninhibited as the evening went on. Would you agree with that?

Dr Cross

… absolutely. I think I am gregarious anyway. I think I am probably much more of an extrovert than Mr Hughes. I think it would be fair to say that I was loud and more animated as the evening progressed.

Mr Tyme then asks about the alcohol—how much was bought, by whom, why. Dr Cross declares that he bought the wine (two bottles to 107begin, then another two bottles later on) because he thought himself the best-paid member of the party and obviously did not want the BPS to pay for it. The party ended around ten o’clock, by which time he said he was drunk.