Public Document Virginia Jibowu Witness Statement: Virginia Jibowu vs Kings College London

Virginia Jibowu

IN THE CENTRAL COUNTY COURT Case No: 9CL00753

Between:
VIRGINIA JIBOWU
Claimant

And
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT OF
VIRGINIA JIBOWU




1. I Virginia O. S Jibowu of  South Lambeth, London  make the following statement.



2. I am a 26 –year old female of Nigerian-Welsh origin. I was a full-time undergraduate student on the Defendant’s Extended Medical Degree Programme (EMDP) from September 2002 until December 2008. On 20 October 2008 I was injured by a porter driving a wheelchair into the back of my leg whilst I was on my clinical attachment at King’s College Hospital. As a result of my injury, Professor Greenough (Head of the medical School) removed me from my programme. I am currently unemployed and suffer from reduced mobility as a result of the injury sustained.



3. King’s College London medical School is called Guy’s King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine (GKT). KCL is in partnership with Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals. The Institute of Psychiatry (IOP) became a school of King’s College London in August 1997. The King’s College Hospital is further affiliated with the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. KCL also has various alliances with South London G. P. Practices within Lambeth and other Primary Care Trusts. The General Medical Council and the South Thames Foundation Schools are also closely linked with KCL.



4. Whilst at King’s College London (KCL) I was subjected to disability discrimination preventing me from taking up the F1 post I had secured with the Wales Foundation School. I suffer from severe incapacitating dysmenorrhoea. This is a debilitating condition which prevents me from carrying on my normal day to day activities for at least 2 days every month (I refer to the letter dated 6 August 2001 from Anne Giwa-Amu to the Health Authority (marked exhibit 1), with the response dated 17 August 2001 (marked exhibit 2), and also the letter dated 10 August 2001 from Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital confirming my referral to the Pain Management Centre (marked exhibit 3).



5. I was also subjected to ‘continuing acts’ of racial segregation, racial discrimination, harassment, bullying and institutional racism from 2002-2009. In summary:



a) I was racially discriminated against during the recruitment and selection process and racially segregated onto the EMDP course which I had not applied for.

b) Despite my protests, I was kept on the EMDP course from 2002-2008/9

c) The EMDP course is a 6 year programme whilst the standard MBBS is a 5 year programme. Therefore, being placed on the EMDP course subjected me an additional year at university during which time I could have been employed.

d) I was compelled to wear a badge from 2002-2008/9 marking me out as one of the EMDP students. As the course was advertised as being designed to bring in more students from socially deprived ethnic minority backgrounds this was a humiliating experience for me.

e) I was compelled to participate in various research projects without my knowledge and consent. This included social research, psychological research and IQ tests from 2002 -2008/9.

f) I was covertly monitored without good reason over a period of time whilst on the EMDP course.

g) My complaints of racial harassment and bullying by fellow students were not investigated but I was ‘watched’ because I had made those complaints.

h) I was subjected to ‘institutional victimisation’ because of my complaints by members of the management team who orchestrated a campaign to discredit me.

i) Following my injury whilst on clinical attachment at King’s College Hospital, management refused to investigate my complaints and continued to spread false and defamatory statements about my mental health.



Further details are provided below.





6. Due to my complaints of racial segregation, racial discrimination, harassment, bullying and institutional racism, I suffered victimisation from members of the management team. My protected acts are as follows:

a) In 2002 I protested to Gavin Brown that my application for the MBBS 5 had been rejected in order to channel me onto the experimental EMDP course.

b) In 2002-2003 I made complaints to Dr Pamela Garlick and Professor Standring about the segregated nature of the EMDP course and asked to be transferred to the MBBS5 course.

c) In 2005 I made a complaint to the college of harassment and bullying by Richard Pinder who was my clinical partner at the time. I asked to be moved away from him.

d) On 2 December 2006, I submitted a written complaint of harassment and bullying against Emily Bowen, Steve Dixon and Simon Hill. I made a verbal complaint to staff indicating that the harassment was racially motivated.

e) On 19 September 2007 I made a complaint to the Dean of Victoria Hospital (St Lucia), and the Elective Coordinator against Alexis Johnson, Johanne Adley, Jaskiren Kaur, Emon Malik and Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan for assault, bullying, harassment and breach of contract.

f) On 9 September 2007, I sent Emon Malik a ‘letter of claim’.

g) 24 September 2008, I submitted a claim at the Employment Tribunal.

h) 21 November 2008, I submitted a claim for discrimination at the Central London County Court (8CL09060) which was lost on the court system.

i) 23 December 2008, I submitted a replacement claim at the Central London County Court (which was returned as permission was needed to serve on the defendant’s Solicitor)

j) On 28 January 2008, I submitted the claim for racial discrimination at the Central London County Court (9CL00753)





RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION



7. In November 2001, I submitted my UCAS application form for the MBBS 5 year programme (I refer to the UCAS application; marked exhibit 4). The entrance requirements were advertised in the prospectus as ‘ABB’ at A- level, based upon a tariff point system. My predicted grades were ‘AAC’ at A level. I took up and sat an additional AS level in English Literature during my final year for which I had no predicted grade (I refer to the interview form 2002-2003 for Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ (GKT) School of Medicine 2002/2003 entry; marked exhibit 5,).



8. The entry requirements for the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MB BS) may be satisfied by obtaining passes in at least three subjects at A Level and one at AS level in the General Certificate of Education examinations, at grades to be determined by the School of Medicine. (I refer to the KCL Regulations for the Degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MB BS) new and old curriculum dated June 2006, referred to as exhibit 6).



9. During my A level’s at Lambeth College, I also studied for the ‘Key Skills’- a new programme introduced at Lambeth College and other Colleges nation wide. I had also obtained work experience with a GP practice and carried out voluntary work at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital. In addition, I had numerous sports awards, for swimming and rowing competitions.



10. On 29 April 2002, I was interviewed for the 6 year EMDP programme by Professor Standring (white) and Gavin Brown (white) (I refer to GKT interview form 2002/2003; marked exhibit 5). On the day of my interview for the EMDP Programme, I was provided with a leaflet which had been produced by KCL advertising the ‘Access to Medicine Programme’. This course was neither advertised in the KCL prospectus, nor by Lambeth College where I studied. It stated that ‘students who are predicted ABB or better at A level should not apply for the Access to Medicine Programme – they are eligible for our five-year MBBS programme…..’. I had correctly applied for the MBBS5 course but I was called for interview for the EMDP course. Also, students applying for the EMDP course were not permitted to apply for the MBBS at other universities or at KCL. The EMDP used Personal qualities Assessment to admit candidates on potential as well as achievement which did not apply to standard MBBS candidates. (I refer to the leaflet: ‘KCL Access to Medicine Programme’; marked exhibit 7 and KCL ‘ACCESS AGREEMENT SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE FOR FAIR ACCESS (OFFA), marked exhibit 8).



11. As a students on the EMDP course, Lambeth College would have been required to provide an ‘additional detailed reference’ for me. (I refer to the Department of Health (DoH) document, page 13, marked exhibit 9). Unlike standard MBBS students the EMDP students had ‘widening participation statistics’ kept on their ‘student file’. This included information about my parents. (I refer to the document ‘WHAT IS A STUDENT RECORD? A case study by King’s college London, dated November 2003, marked exhibit 10). Following my formal complaint against Dr Bradbeer, I was informed by Hannah Sewell that Dr Bradbeer had recorded on my student file that she had referred me to the HIV/STD clinic and that it would be deleted.



12. KCL had publicised that the EMDP programme was designed to bring in more students from ‘socially deprived backgrounds’, in particular from inner-city areas with a large black/ethnic population (Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and City of Westminster) who may not otherwise have achieved the actual or predicted grades to train as doctors. It was assumed that I was from a socially deprived background as I was black and studying at an inner City College. I was stigmatised during the application process and interviewed for the programme because I was studying at Lambeth College (I refer to the News archive 2002 ‘Access to Medicine and Damilola Taylor Trust’; marked exhibit 11).



13. During the interview, Gavin Brown informed me that I had not been invited for the MBBS programme as I had taken up my English AS-level in my final year, and had no predicted grade for this subject. I asked him if it would be possible to transfer onto the main programme if I achieved a high grade and he confirmed that this may have been possible. King’s College London (KCL) had refused to interview me for the 5 year programme without good reason but I hoped that on achieving high grades I would be transferred on to the MBBS 5 year course.



14. On the day of my interview, I met an Asian student with the same predicted grades as myself and no additional AS-level. She was being interviewed for the main MBBS 5 year programme. I believe that the decision not to interview me for the 5 year course was motivated by racial discrimination, as King’s College London were keen to recruit students onto their new “Access to Medicine Programme”/ “EMDP”.



15. On 30 April 2002, KCL made me a conditional offer (CCC+ pass at AS-Level) for a place on the ‘Access to Medicine MBBS6’ (EMDP). (I refer to the letter from Professor Standring dated 30 April 2002 marked exhibit 12). On 13 May 2002, UCAS notified me of the conditional offer for Course code A101 (EMDP 6 year programme). On my UCAS Final Decision Letter I had been removed from the main A100 programme which I had applied for and placed on the A101 (EMDP course) without my consultation or consent. (I refer to UCAS Final Decision Letter dated 13 May 2002; marked exhibit 13). I was very upset about this but still believed that when I achieved the necessary results that I would be fairly treated and correctly placed on the MBBS5.



16. I sat my A-level examinations in June 2002 (I refer to Candidate Statement of Entry; marked exhibit 14). On 23 August 2002, UCAS confirmed my place on A101, stating that ‘This is your final offer through UCAS. You cannot apply to another university or college or go into Clearing. If you do not accept this place, you cannot apply through UCAS again for courses starting this year’ (I refer to the UCAS confirmation statement AS12; marked exhibit 15). However, I had been put through clearing onto the ‘Access to Medicine Programme’ without my knowledge or consent. This document was provided under my Data Protection Act request (DPA) by King’s College London (KCL), the date appears to be altered (I refer to the Clearing 2002 Information, Access to Medicine; marked exhibit 16). This denied me the opportunity of going through clearing onto a standard degree programme.



17. In a letter dated 25 June 2002, KCL sent me joining instructions for the ‘ACCESS TO MEDICINE’ course (I refer to the letter dated 25 June 2002 from Martyn Annis (KCL Assistant Registrar, Admissions), marked exhibit 17). This was done prior to me completing my A and AS level examinations. On 26 August 2002, under duress, I confirmed that I would be taking up the place on the A101 course (I refer to the AS12 reply slip; marked exhibit 18). I was one of 19 students accepted on the ‘Access to medicine intake 2002’ (I refer to the KCL ‘Access to Medicine 2002’ intake chart provided under DPA, marked exhibit 19).



18. In response to my Race Relations Act Questionnaire which I submitted on 6 October 2008, KCL alleged that I was interviewed for the MBBS5 year programme and offered a conditional place on that course. It was also alleged that the offer was withdrawn when I didn’t achieve the predicted A-level grades (I refer to the Race Relations Act Questionnaire page 6, question 15; marked exhibit 20). The conditional offer was not based upon me achieving the grades predicted by Lambeth College but by the actual grades obtained. My conditional offer was ‘CCC’ at A level and a pass at AS-level which I exceeded.



19. If as KCL alleges, I had been given a conditional offer for the MBBS five year programme (A-level CCC+ pass at AS-level) I was wrongly placed on the EMDP 6 year course in breach of contract. This would also have been racially discriminatory due to the segregated nature of the EMDP course.



20. On 15 August 2002 I received my A-level and AS-level results. I obtained ACC grades at A-level with an additional B grade at AS-level English. I missed the ‘B’ grade in Chemistry by less than 1% (6 points) and an ‘A’ grade at AS-level English by less than 1% (4 points). (I refer to the breakdown of grade boundaries on facsimile from Lambeth College dated 15 August 2002, marked exhibit 21, the AQA Candidate statement of provisional results, marked exhibit 22; OCR Statement of results June 2002 issued 15 August 2002 marked exhibit 23 and AQA Candidate Statement of Provisional Results June 2002, marked exhibit 24.) I telephoned Gavin Brown immediately after sending him the facsimile of my results and I asked him if I could transfer to the 5 year course with the grades that I had achieved. He told me I was unable to do so as the course was full and if I decided to appeal my A level result that I would need to remove myself from the UCAS scheme resulting in me losing my place at KCL that year. Grade ‘A’ at English AS level was recorded on my UCAS form (provided to me as part of my KCL DPA request) but grade ‘B’ on my certificate (please refer to exhibit 4 ‘results’ column).



21. Due to the additional year of the EMDP Programme and the additional financial burden of the 6th year, I could not afford to study for the Intercalated BSc degree as candidates registered for the MB BS, even though I would have done so if I had obtained a place on the 5 year course. (I refer to the ‘A4 Academic regulations for undergraduate programmes based on course units’ clause 17, marked exhibit 25)



DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT ON THE EMDP COURSE



22. During the induction week all students (the combined group of EMDP and MBBS students) were asked to attend the Greenwood Lecture Theatre. The theatre was split into three sections with approximately the same number of seats. One of the lecturers asked us to look at the person on our immediate left and immediate right. He then said that one in three would not qualify. I looked at the one section of the hall and realised that over 100 students would not qualify. I was later informed by Richard Pinder and other students that we would be competitively marked to ensure 10 per cent of students failed each year. Later on in the course Dr Richard Phillips announced that the final year was not competitively marked unlike the previous years.



23. The EMDP students I had been placed with were taken from particular inner city boroughs with a large Black Ethnic Minority (BEM) population. For example, Lambeth has one of the largest BEM populations in Europe. Therefore, there were a disproportionate number of Black students on the EMDP programme. There were very few Black students on the main MBBS course at KCL and the majority of ethnic minority students on the MBBS were almost exclusively Asian.



24. I believe that one of the reasons I was placed on the EMDP programme was due to the extra funding received by the College for each EMDP student. KCL aimed to have 50 students in each year of its 6 year programme by 2005. This would generate an income of £2,100, 000 for the college, per annum (I refer to the KCL News archive 2002 ‘King’s creates more doctors from diverse backgrounds’ marked exhibit 26).

25. During the first term Dr Pamela Garlick told me that they were very pleased to have me on the EMDP course as I was the first student that they had accepted from Lambeth College. She told me that they hadn’t had an opportunity to visit Lambeth College to promote the EMDP course, but that they were planning a visit and expected me to accompany them as a student representative. I felt pressurised to assist in advertising a discriminatory programme.



26. 19 students started the EMDP in 2002. The racial origin was as follows:



a) Virginia Jibowu (Black, mixed Black-White)

b) Ahmed Dire (Black, African)

c) Johanne Adley whose mother Mrs Jean Adley is employed as a Secretary at KCL (White, mixed White-Egyptian).

d) Ozan Demir (White, Greek)

e) Nyaomi (Asian, India)

f) Annette Ona-Olapo (Black,African)

g) Asma (Asian, Indian)

h) Bernadette Nzekwu (Black, African)

i) Mary (Black, African)

j) Julia Ogunmuyiwa (Black, African)

k) Rajwinder Nijjar (Asian, Indian)

l) Ibironke Bisiriyu (Black, African )

m) Barbara Nzekwu (Black, African)

n) Alexis Johnson (White, British)

o) Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan (Asian, Srilankan)

p) Mohammed Abdulla (Arab, Yemeni)

q) Simon (White, British)

r) Amit Sharma (Asian, Indian)

s) Gupret (Asian, Indian)

27. I was very distressed at being placed on the EMDP course as I had worked very hard to meet the criteria to obtain a place on the MB BS 5 year course. I do not consider myself to be from a ‘socially deprived background’ and I knew that I had been unfairly treated by being forced onto that programme. I felt that I was being stereotyped because I was Black (mixed race). I felt too ashamed to tell my family and friends that I had been placed on a ‘special’ programme. Other students on the EMDP course also expressed their embarrassment at being placed on this course and avoided discussions about the programme with other students.

28. On one occasion Dr Pamela Garlick (Director of the EMDP Course) informed the EMDP group that management had decided to put a particular student onto the EMDP course, even though he had the right grades for the standard MBBS 5year programme because they “felt he would ‘be better off’ being with his friends”. I thought this decision was prejudiced, deeply offensive and an abuse of power.

29. During my first term at King’s, I was informed by an Asian student on the 5 year programme that he was accepted on the course with ‘BBB’ A level grades. I was informed that in 2002 King’s College adopted a flexible recruitment policy to accept students on the 5 year programme with a lower A-level score than KCL would normally accept, but who had attended a school with a poor academic record (I refer to KCL News achieve, KCL Student recruitment Policy, 31 May 2005, PR 33/05; marked exhibit 27 ). I was informed that some students had been accepted on the MBBS 5 with C grades.

30. Also during my first term, Johanne Adly told me and other students that she had not applied through UCAS as she missed the deadline. She informed us that the reason she had a place at university was because her mother worked for KCL and had used her connections and influence to get her a place on the EMDP course (I refer to the extract from the e-mail and telephone directory: King’s College London, marked exhibit 28). Members of staff appeared very familiar with Johanne Adly and on one occasion Ruth Sugden (Seminar Leader and Primary Care Trust Coordinator, KCL, working in the same department/practice as Dr Richard Philips ) asked her how her ‘mother was doing’ as she ‘hadn’t seen her in a while’. Also other members of staff, including a GP seminar leader displayed familiarity and concern for her welfare.

31. When another EMDP student informed me that she had been accepted onto the EMDP programme with ‘EEE’ A level grades (Asma, an Asian EMDP student), I felt very cheated. I had worked very hard to achieve my A-level results and did not expect to be subjected to such racially discriminatory practices.



32. During the first two years, I was required to attend some lectures and tutorials with standard MBBS students, however, the EMDP students were required to leave the lectures/tutorials to attend EMDP tutorials. This caused the other students and lecturers to enquire as to why we were leaving. Thus, all the standard MBBS students were made aware of our different status. Our early departure also drew complaints from tutors who believed that we were ‘bunking off’ due to laziness. As a result, Dr Pamela Garlick had to remind the tutors of our EMDP status and this was then emphasised every time we left a standard MBBS tutorial early.



33. When the tutors realised that I was on the EMDP course, their attitude towards me changed. On one occasion Dr Papachristodolou (Despo) told me that she did not believe that Ahmed Dirie was on the EMDP course as he was so intelligent. This implied that the tutors had a low expectations of the EMDP students and that they regarded us as being of low intelligence. This was humiliating and degrading for me.



34. As a result of the EMDP course, Black students became stigmatised as less academically able than White/Asian students. On numerous occasions, White and Asian students on the main programme would ask me whether other Black students who were on the main programme were also EMDP students. The EMDP course promoted a bad image of Black students in particular.



35. On a number of occasions I was told by other students that EMDP students were ‘undeserving’ of a place in medicine. The MBBS5 students displayed a great deal of resentment and animosity towards EMDP students, as they believed we had been taken onto the medical programme with unacceptably low grades. The advertising and promotion of the EMDP course, and the course itself, undermined my achievements and caused me to be marginalised and stigmatised at the university. I was constantly having to defend my place by telling the other students what A level grades I had attained.



36. EMDP students did not remain with the same cohort of standard MBBS medical students that they had began the medical course with. During my first term a student in my tutor group asked me if I would be with her MBBS5 group the following year. When I informed her that I wouldn’t, she immediately disassociated herself from me, as did other students on the standard MBBS programme. Other EMDP students complained that the students on the standard MBBS course were not associating with them. A student on the EMDP course also told me that it would be a waste of time for us to go out together with them socially as we would not be together the following year.

37. On one occasion Dr Pamela Garlick asked me to accompany her on a visit to promote the programme in my ‘old College’. I was also expected to visits other schools/colleges in my local area. I felt too ashamed to be associated with the EMDP. We had been informed that the additional year was to provide us with extra support but instead our time was being wasted in advertising the programme and participating in research. Also, attending these visits would have caused me to miss lectures. When I informed Dr Pamela Garlick that I was unable to assist, she became hostile and dismissive towards me in the presence of other EMDP students. She appeared irritated by me and began to isolate me during discussions. Dr Pamela Garlick brought my complaints about the programme to the attention of Professor Standring and I was moved away and isolated from the other EMDP students during my second year at King’s (EMDP 2/MB BS 1B).



38. In February 2004 EMDP students were required to attend an experimental ‘PANDA Programme’, which students on the standard MBBS course were not required to attend. This ‘PANDA Programme’ was on a similar level to primary/early secondary school English (covering both grammar and comprehension) (I refer ‘The EMDP PANDA Programme 2003-2004 GKT School of Medicine Feb. 2004’ booklet, marked exhibit 29). We were informed by Dr Pamela Garlick that we were to take part in this pilot programme due to complaints from consultants about the poor standard of grammar and spelling amongst new junior doctors (MBBS). Dr Pamela Garlick explained that the ‘PANDA Programme’ was to be tested on EMDP students first with a view to introducing it to the whole of the medical cohort (MBBS). On average we spent 6 hours per week on the ‘PANDA Programme’. This time could have been better spent studying medicine, which is what I signed up for. I felt that the ‘PANDA Programme’ was a complete waste of my time as I had already past AS-level English with a high ‘B’ grade and had completed the ‘key skills’ at Lambeth college. When EMDP students, including myself, informed students on the main programme what we were studying, they ridiculed us. On one occasion I overheard a student comment that the ‘PANDA Programme’ reflected the educational standard we had attained and we were incapable and undeserving of a place in Medical school. At university, I expected to be working at undergraduate level and not at primary/secondary level. Therefore it was a humiliating and demeaning experience for me.



39. During a tutorial on the ‘PANDA Programme’ the lecturer (Graham Mitchell) told us that we were from a “different” background to him and “we didn’t seem like dog people”. He was patronising towards the students and implied that we were uncultured due to our racial origins and perceived ‘socially deprived backgrounds’. The tutor’s general attitude towards us was humiliating and demeaning. As a result, most of the students stopped attending his class. A small group of students, including myself, continued to attend. Dr Pamela Garlick sent all EMDP students (in our year) an e-mail telling us that we were ‘rude’ not to attend and that we should all have been grateful that they put us onto the EMDP course as ‘none of (us) would have got into any University otherwise’. Students complained to Dr Pamela Garlick about the lecturer’s attitude towards us. Dr Pamela Garlick informed us at the end of the course that the programme was unsuccessful as the results showed that “hardly anyone improved” and “infact some students became worse”. Although we were used in this pilot study, we were never given back our work or given our results.



40. As I was on the EMDP Programme, I was unable to attend the course to become an Associate of King’s College. This course was an extra-curricular programme open to students of all disciplines. However, the AKC course clashed with the EMDP lectures so that it was difficult to attend. It was also spread over 3 years instead of 2 for other University students – despite the content being the same. This disadvantaged me as an EMDP student.



41. During our pre-clinical years the EMDP students were given a choice of 2 Special Study Modules (SSM). Standard MBBS students had alternatives and a wider range of choice. None of the standard MBBS students were permitted to take the same modules as the EMDP students. This different treatment limited my choices and further segregated us from the standard MB BS students.



42. During the first year I complained to Dr Pamela Garlick (white) about the segregated nature of the EMDP programme. I asked if anything could be done differently the following year and for the next group of EMDP students. Dr Pamela Garlick told me that I was “being manipulative’ because she claimed that I wanted to be transferred to the main programme. She informed Professor Susan Standring (my clinical tutor at the time). Professor Susan Standring stated that she thought that “I wanted to be moved” from my tutor group because I “dislike Despo (Dr Despo Papachristodoulou)”. I told her that this was not correct and could not understand how she had come to this conclusion. I had never made any complaints about Despo as I liked her and I thought she was an excellent tutor.



43. During the first year I had always been paired with Ahmed Dirie (EMDP student) during the group tutorials. The following year (2003-2004) I was the only EMDP student moved away from my tutor (Dr Despo Papachristodoulou) and not paired with another EMDP student. I was transferred into a tutorial group in which I was the only EMDP student. All of the other EMDP students remained paired/partnered.



44. Prior to beginning the EMDP course, I was informed that the extra time (one year) was for us to study the medical curriculum at a slower pace and receive additional support. We received very little additional support and I found that the EMDP course was merely an experiment as students were used for educational, social-demographic psychometric/IQ and psychological research. I was not informed prior to the course that I would be required to provide personal information about myself and my family or take part in any ‘studies’. We were compelled to attend as we were warned that non-attendance was a serious offence, punishable by suspension from the College. We were also warned that non-attendance would be ‘flagged up’. A group of students, including myself asked Dr Pamela Garlick why we had to do an additional year as many of the activities could have taken place during free periods or after lectures, if at all. Dr Pamela Garlick responded with hostility.



45. During my pre-clinical years I raised concerns with Dr Garlick regarding the fairness of testing at KCL as many students on the main programme had acquired past papers that were not normally available to students. Dr Garlick did not respond to my concerns but some of the other EMDP students (Ozan, Mary and others) told me to just ‘make friends’ with the students who had the papers. The College had officially stopped providing access to past papers just before the EMDP students started their studies. I was informed that these had been available to previous years. However, select groups of students on the standard MBBS were able to obtain these past papers. Competitive marking meant that if students did not have access to these ‘past paper’ they were almost guaranteed to perform badly or fail their examinations. This meant that certain students had to work harder and were under a great deal more stress. In addition to this there were often ‘specialised’ questions in the examinations which were not covered by the syllabus or lectures. Some of these questions were about areas of research which were still unproven/ under debate, so ‘answering correctly’ would be a matter of being taught by and agreeing with the research professor. Often these theories contradicted with the text books. Students were also informed by Dr Phillips and other lecturers that in some examinations the answers were decided after the examination took place and if students who performed well overall got a question wrong, the question may be removed from the examination or two answers may have been accepted as correct. I thought this was grossly unfair as my examination marks did not reflect the amount of knowledge I had or the amount of work I had done. I believe that if I had been given the past papers before every examination, like other students, I would have graduated with a distinction (if fairly examined).



46. During my time at King’s and especially during my final year many students had access to past OSCE mark sheets and guidance via revision courses. Whilst at my placement in the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford Kent, Jigna Patel and Bijal Korathi had a large file of past papers which they were using to practice from with other students. Emily (Jane) Petigrew told Rachell Sussman during a practice session in our flat that they didn’t need to cover a particular OSCE topic at all as “Patterson said it wouldn’t come up” for them. Some students also had written examination papers but were more discrete about this, keeping them to themselves. During a teaching session in the clinical skills centre before the final examinations, a female student became angry because we had seen other students with large files of past papers. She complained to the supervisor (hosting the practice session) that it was cheating, other students argued that if they had a selection of past papers it was not cheating unless they had the answers and paper that was due to come up. This ‘discussion’ consumed most of the session. Examination pass marks were decided during Examination board meetings, after examinations took place. This meant that particular students could be targeted to fail or pass especially with new policies regarding ‘extended examinations’. Some students could be passed at the board’s discretion.





47. On 11 September 2003, I attended an informative meeting for 6th form students joining the EMDP programme. One of the EMDP students shouted out that Professor Susan Standring was a ‘bitch’ as she had prevented a Black student on the standard MBBS programme from qualifying as a doctor. Professor Standring had allegedly failed her in her viva during the final exams. She said that it meant that the student would never be able to do medicine again. The student was obviously very distressed and annoyed. At the time, I spoke out in support of Professor Standring saying ‘she’s just a bit strict’ but I was concerned that I might be victimised as a result of the utterances of the group of students.



48. I was so dissatisfied with the EMDP programme that during my first year I made enquires about transferring to another University. I obtained information from UCL but found that I was unable to transfer because I was an EMDP student. This was also because I had not appealed my A level results.



49. After our examinations in 2005, a circular was sent to all EMDP students requesting their assistance in visiting local Colleges to speak to sixth form students about the EMDP course. As an incentive, we were offered £47.53 per day. As I could not get a summer job and I was very overdrawn, on 7 July 2005, I assisted as an EMDP student representative on the outreach programme in Tower Hamlets. Due to the London bombings, I was forced to walk home accompanied for part of the way by Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan ((Siva) (EMDP student)) and Gavin Brown (KCL staff). Siva asked Gavin Brown whether there were any students that he had taken on to the EMDP Programme who he later regretted giving a place. Gavin confirmed that there were such students and stated that luckily it never became a long term problem as they would fail their exams or drop out due to personal or financial reasons. When Siva asked if there were any from our intake, he appeared uncomfortable and left us without replying. In October 2005, Gavin Brown invited the EMDP students to meet a group of Swedish High School students as the Swedish government was ‘pushing the widening participation agenda and they want to learn from us how to widen access’. On 13 October 2005, I informed Gavin Brown that I could not attend due to lectures. (I refer to the email correspondence with Gavin Brown dated 13 October 2005, marked exhibit 30)





LOSS OF EARNINGS DUE TO MY PLACEMENT ON THE EMDP COURSE



50. Being placed on the EMDP course subjected me to an additional financial burden. If I had been placed on the standard MBBS course, I would have qualified and begun my F1 training in August 2007. I would have began my F2 training in August 2008, working as a fully registered doctor. As a result my loss of earnings to date are approximately £ 116, 931 ((£32,793 in the F1 year, £40, 674 for the F2 year, and £43,464 at SHO grade (I refer to ‘Pay for doctors: NHS careers’ marked exhibit 31).



BADGE- ID CARD



51. As an EMDP student, I was distinguished from the students on the standard MBBS course by the ID card which we were required to wear as a badge. This stated I was an EMDP student. I along with all other students were instructed by staff during lectures and group sessions that we were required to wear our ID cards during tutorials and whilst in clinical areas. It also gave us access to the libraries and other areas of the building, so students had to wear the badge almost all the time. During the first year, I along with other EMDP students complained about having to wear the badge as staff and students assumed that being EMDP students indicated that we were less academically able and came from socially ‘deprived backgrounds’. As a result, we were treated with contempt. (I refer to copies of my ID badge and ID card, marked exhibit 32).



52. In 2004 Ahmed Dirie informed me that he had told Dr Pamela Garlick about my concerns in relation to the EMDP badge and she had reacted with hostility. This was something that several students, including Ahmed had complained about so I was surprised that I had been named in the conversation. Following my complaints, both Professor Standring and Dr Garlick became very hostile towards me in the presence of the other EMDP students. I felt intimidated and that my place on the course was threatened. I felt I was being used as an example to other students to show the consequences of raising concerns. I and the other EMDP students became reluctant to complain again.



53. In the response to my Race Relations Act Questionnaire submitted on 6 October 2008, KCL alleged that the ‘badges do not specify a programme of study and simply state the student’s name, a photo of the student and state ‘Medical student’ (I refer to page 11 of the Response to the RRA Questionnaire, Question 31, marked exhibit 33). This statement is incorrect. During the pre-clinical years of study standard MBBS and EMDP students were issued with white badges. The EMDP students’ badges indicated our EMDP status. Dr Garlick had informed the group that during ‘clinicals’ (years 3-5 standard MBBS/years 4-6EMDP), the EMDP students would not be distinguishable from the other MBBS students. She informed us that we would be reissued with the same pink cards which all other students had. Prior to our first clinical year (EMDP Year 4), EMDP students were issued with the pink ID badge/swipe card but it still indicated our ‘Extended’ status. It was compulsory for all students to wear this pink badge in all clinical areas. We were also issued with a small white badge which did not indicate our ‘Extended’ status but was not compulsory. We were required to wear both the pink ID badge and the white badge during the clinical rotations.







THE USE OF EMDP STUDENTS IN RESEARCH



54. In breach of my human rights, I along with the other EMDP students were compelled to take part in psychological tests, IQ tests, sociological/demographic and psychometric assessments, (I refer to ‘info.med.’ King’s College London; Issue 5, summer 2005, page 16, marked exhibit 34). Students on the standard MBBS programme were not compelled to take part in this research. Standard MBBS students were often sent circulars inviting them to volunteer for studies, some approved by King’s College Hospital. For example, in 2008 a circular was sent by the College asking for female participants for a major personality experiment aimed at investigating the biological basis of personality. The experiment involved DNA analysis, a joystick experiment and questionnaires and took place at the Institute of Psychiatry. Ethical approval was given by King’s College Hospital research Ethics committee. (I refer to ‘circular: female participants required for a major personality experiment’ dated 6 November 2008, marked exhibit 35)



55. EMDP students were also instructed by Professor Standring to attended psychological assessments in pre-clinical years. In a letter dated 24 May 2002 Professor Standring requested that I took part in research that had been carried out in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland in order to select medical students. This letter was given to me and other EMDP students by hand during the induction programme in September 2002. The tests appeared psychological in nature and questioned our moral judgement. The ethical questions asked were not specific to medicine and appeared to be character assessments, similar to the Myer-Briggs/ Myer-Briggs-Jung personality type analysis. The Myers- Briggs foundation states that such tests should only be conducted and analysed by qualified, trained personnel. It also states that it is unethical to test subjects without their full knowledge and consent. We were informed that these tests were compulsory to EMDP students. Students accepted for the standard MBBS course were not compelled to take part. We were never given the results of the test (I refer to the letter dated 24 May 2002 from Professor Susan Standring (unsigned), marked exhibit 36, and information about the Myer-Briggs tests marked exhibit 37).



56. Towards the end of a tutorial in April 2003, Dr Garlick instructed all EMDP students to arrange a meeting with Sheila Macre (Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College, London). She stated that we were to meet with her individually to ‘have a chat’ about the EMDP course. At the time Dr Garlick described Sheila Macre as ‘her colleague’ and stated that the information was required for the Medical School. Despite not wanting to be interviewed, I was informed that my participation was compulsory and failure to cooperate was a disciplinary matter. We were not informed that Sheila Macre was an educational psychologist, or that we were being used in Dr Garlick’s research project. Dr Garlick informed us that we would be contacted by e-mail in order to confirm an appointment In the response to my Race Relations Act Questionnaire the College informed me that the information gathered by Dr Sheila Macre was for Dr Pamela Garlick’s research project (I refer to RRA response Q.38 ( Re: research on students) marked exhibit 38).





57. On 11 April 2003, I attend an interview with Dr Sheila Macre. (I refer to the email correspondence with Dr Macre dated 10 April 2003, marked exhibit 39). Dr Sheila Macre recorded our conversation without my consent. It was apparent at the start of the interview that she had already been provided with personal information about me which she asked me to confirm. This was supplied to her without my knowledge or consent. She requested specific, private and personal information about my family background and about my parents. This removed the anonymity from the data. The questions included whether I was an only child, the work my parents did, whether my mother was a single parent, whether my parents were divorced and how many bedrooms were in my mother's flat. She told me: ‘You share a one bedroom flat with your mother, don’t you?’ Most of her questions appeared to be rhetorical. I found her questioning very intrusive and an invasion of my privacy but I felt compelled to cooperate. She told me that she would be interviewing me again in my final year. She did not interview me in my final year of study but during the re-sitter’s course, I was subjected to ‘group counselling’ and refused to co-operate. I was also given an ‘abstract puzzle’ to solve.



58. Along with other EMDP students, I was also required to complete a questionnaire providing the College with detailed information about my socio-economic background. I was required to provide information as to the level of education achieved by my parents and about their occupations. I was also asked whether my parents were still together and whether my mother was a single parent. On one occasion Professor Susan Standring asked me for details of my General Practitioner. When I wouldn’t provide her with this information she became agitated. I found this intrusion into my personal life humiliating, disturbing and offensive.



59. I was observed by Dr Barbra Moreland (KCL Senior Lecturer) during the SSM tutorial which was a taught course. During my pre-clinical SSM on ‘The Social Impact of the Biosciences’, Dr Barbara Moreland sat in to observe the group. She did not contribute or lead the course but appeared particularly interested in how Julia, Mary and I (also EMDP students) interacted with the students that were not MBBS students. These students attended from other degree courses. Dr Moreland went on to help run the Graduate Entry Programme (GPEP course), a shorter course of 4 years for post-graduates.



60. Along with the other EMDP students, I was instructed by Professor Susan Standring and Dr Pamella Garlick to complete some ‘tests for the College’ with Mary Herns. When we attended, we where presented with IQ tests. Kings College London's Institute of Psychiatry (Maudsley) has a long history of involvement in research relating to IQ differences between Caucasians and minority groups. The best known is Professor Eysenck'. This Professor of Psychology concluded "Among other things, he argued that psychotherapy was virtually worthless, that blacks scored lower on I.Q. tests than whites at least partly because of their genetic makeup". After completing the tests, I along with the other students asked for the results but this information was withheld. Professor Standring later informed me that they would have expected me to have been performing at a much higher level ‘than the others’. She did not inform me of my results. I asked students on the standard MBBS course whether they had been required to complete the IQ tests and they confirmed that they had not.





INCIDENTS OF DISCRIMINATION, BULLYING AND HARASSMENT



61. In 2002, I obtained student accommodation at the Great Dover Street Apartments (student halls). I was placed to share a flat with Richard Pinder (non-Black African), Marious, Emma (a transfer student from Cambridge), Veronica and Iwan Evans. I became friendly with Richard and with his girlfriend (Christine) and with other students at Great Dover Street Apartments, including Michelle (‘Shelly’), Alexandra Weaver (Alex), Thomas James-Catell (Tom). I was happy there and got on well with all the students.



62. On one occasion Richard told me that a female student (Michelle Lee) was coming over to visit him and he thought she was interested in him, but he was not interested in her. He asked me if I would do him a favor and occasionally come into his room to check on him. He said that he did not want her to get too comfortable, so it would be a distraction if I came in. I told him he was overreacting and that I was sure she would not ‘jump on him’. As he was insistent I agreed to come in to ask him questions about the tutorial I had to finish. I went in twice.



63. During my first term at Great Dover Street student halls, I was very ill due to the severe dysmenorrhoea I suffer from. I had been in agony with vomiting and diarrhoea for hours. Emma, one of my flat mates was in the flat but had to leave to attend her clinical rotation. As she did not feel it was safe to leave me on my own, she telephoned my mother and asked her to come to care for me. When my mother arrived, we decided it would be best if I moved back home. Richard later told me that Marious (another student) had informed him that I was unwell but he did not know the reason. I felt that my condition was private so chose not to disclose it to anyone. One day in the flat, Richard told me that I was 'not like the other EMDP students'. I asked him what he meant and he said 'you're quite well spoken and you know....'.



64. I had a good relationship with Richard and all of the other students at Great Dover Street Apartments. Even after I left we still maintained contact and sat together during lectures. Richard Pinder, moved into a house with Alex Weever, Michelle and Tom James-Catell (from a neighboring flat). Richard and I were both in the process of converting to Catholicism and occasionally attended church and Christian events. Richard Pinder and I attended a wine evening at Guy’s campus for a Christian society which was open to students of all faiths. During this informal get together Professor Standring approached us and said to me: ‘Oh, how do the two of you know each other?’ I explained that we used to live together and that we were both in the middle of converting to Catholicism. She appeared to be disapproving and walked off without further comment. A few days later, Dr Pamela Garlick also asked me how I knew Richard Pinder. Again I explained that we had shared a flat in Great Dover Street. I also explained that we were both converting to Catholicism. She became agitated and demanded to know why I was converting. I thought her response was inappropriate and I could not understand the reason for her annoyance and curiosity about my personal affairs. She then went on to tell me that she knew Richard Pinder very well as he sometimes helped them with the ‘Outreach Programme’ visiting inner city schools to publicise the EMDP course.



65. Richard informed me that he knew Dr Garlick and Professor Standring very well as he had been working with them. He was helping them to run the 'outreach programmes’ for the 'Access to Medicine Programme’. I was aware that the College paid students for work but Richard did not disclose his full role to me or whether he was paid.



66. Richard Pinder and Alexander Weaver moved to a house at Queen’s Road, Peckham. On a number of occasions they invited me to visit them. I considered them to be my friends. On one occasion Richard and Alex invited me to a Christmas party at the flat. I attended in a loose fitting top. Whilst I was sitting down Richard came up to me and poked me in the stomach. I was shocked and asked him not to poke me. He said that he had been worried about me as he thought I was a bit skinny during the first year.



67. On a separate occasion Alex invited me for dinner. Before dinner Richard told me that he had stopped contacting a mutual friend (Obinna Onyekwelu), because he had become ‘too black’ in his attitude since returning from his holiday in America. Obi is of African origin. I was very shocked and concerned by Richard’s sudden change in attitude. Thomas James-Catell was present at the time and appeared to be egging Richard on. Richard informed me that he had been doing work on one of the Outreach Programmes. He told me that he ‘did not think much’ of the students. He then asked me if I thought that Black men were less intelligent. I felt very embarrassed and told him that Black men were not less intelligent. I explained that low levels of achievement in any population were often due to a number of factors. He went on to ask me if Black people were more prone to becoming fat ( incidentally these were questions that later came up in our Final MBBS written examination). During dinner Thomas stated that they never see non-white people around his ‘home’ area. He said that there had been a black bin man who had stopped working in their area. He said his mother thought the man had been a ‘lovely little darkie’. Alexandra Weaver, who was present, scorned Thomas and shook her head disapprovingly and everyone went quiet.



68. During my pre-clinicals, Professor Susan Standring had been my personal tutor. For my clinical years I was transferred to Dr Caroline Bradbeer, Senior Clinical Advisor ( I refer to GKT virtual campus notice: Your clinical Advisor is Dr Caroline Bradbeer, printed 15 September 2005, marked exhibit 40). line Bradbeer told me that she always got ‘the problem ones’ as all her students got pregnant and needed help ‘sorting it out’. She asked me if I intended to get pregnant during my course and I assured her that I did not.



69. During my first clinical year (2004- 2005), Dr Bradbeer met me and said that she was concerned about my ‘periods’ and told me to “get it sorted out sharpish”. I was shocked and upset as she came across as blunt and very unsympathetic. I had tried everything to cure or suppress the severe dysmenorrhoea I suffer from. Dr Caroline Bradbeer went on to tell me that if I didn’t sort out my condition immediately it “would affect my ability to hold down a job”. She asked me if I had “seen Dr Hamilton-Fairley” and I informed her that I had. She asked me if I found her helpful and I told her I had not. I specifically asked her not to interfere in my health care as I did not want to be examined by anyone I could end up working with. I was very disturbed by her ignorance of my condition I told my mother about the meeting and my mother later paid for me to visit a private Consultant Gynecologist at another hospital.



70. I believe that due to my condition Dr Bradbeer decided to obtain my medical notes and organize a concerted effort to prevent me from qualifying and gaining employment as a doctor. Her decision to prevent me from going into the workplace is grossly unfair and discriminatory due to my disability. I do not accept that Dr Caroline Bradbeer had the right to make this decision as severe dysmenorrhoea has been documented to be alleviated with age and childbirth. As I am now 26 there should be no reason why I will not be able to work successfully as a doctor.



71. On one occasion I met with Dr Caroline Bradbeer and she asked me what area I wanted to specialize in. I told her I was considering Obstetrics and Gynecology. She told me that she did not see me working in that area and she could see me as a ‘Professor, working in America’. I thought this was odd as I had never expressed an interest in working in America or occupying a purely academic role.



72. In 2005, Richard Pinder asked me to be his clinical partner and I agreed as we got on well as friends. For my first clinical rotation, I was assigned to a Neurology, Opthalmology and Psyciatry (NOP) firm. Dr Shergill (Asian) worked there as a locum psychiatrist. He immediately assigned me to the most difficult patient and laughed. He acted in a hostile manner towards me. I was supposed to be working in a team with Richard Pinder (my clinical partner) and Jaish Puri who were both students on the standard MBBS programme. Jaish Puri did not have a clinical partner so the College automatically assigned him to work with me and Richard. The work should have been shared equally between us but Dr Shergill made me compose a 40 year plot of a patient's manic episodes which Richard Pinder and Jaish Puri were not required to do. When I completed this on time he was surprised and asked for bar charts to be added. I was also asked to monitor my patient's blood results and 'chase up' results. I was in the hospital until the last bus most days because of the number of tasks Dr Shergill had allocated to me alone. Jaish Puri and Richard Pinder, were not required to do the same amount of work and found it amusing that I was being unfairly treated by Dr Shergill. Dr Shergill informed us that we were the first students that he had taught. He was filling in for another member of staff who was away. Dr Shergill signed me off on 9 December 2005 as fulfilling the required compentencies. He informed us as a group that we were all getting merits which I found unfair having done most of the work.



73. During our ‘clinicals’ Richard began to constantly touch me, which I objected to. On a few occasions he grabbed my arm or put his hand behind my back when we were crossing the road. He also became overbearing, took over the examination of patients, and was constantly rude to me in the presence of patients, students and staff. On one occasion Richard Pinder pushed me out of the way with his body. I spoke to Richard Pinder about his behaviour but he would not accept that his behaviour was unacceptable. When I spoke to him about the way he had pushed me, he told me that he ‘didn’t believe he would have done such a thing’. Richard Pinder's behaviour caused me a great deal of distress and a few doctor’s (including ‘Dr Rick’) commented on the ill-treatment I was receiving from him. Dr Rick told Richard that his behaviour was unacceptable but by the following week he appeared to be joining in with sexist jokes. Richard then informed me that he was going on a social outing to the theatre with ‘Dr Rick’ who was Dr Shergill’s junior. ‘Dr Rick’ who had previously criticised Richard for his treatment of me, now turned a blind eye to it. During a group outing Jaish Puri teased Richard for ‘going on a date’ with ‘Dr Rick’. I completed my clinical attachment successfully and was signed off by Dr Marta Di-Forti and the neurology firm head, Dr Sam Chong. I was given a merit. (I refer to my Phase 3A log book entry 2005-2006, marked exhibit 41).



74. On 6 November 2007 I approached Dr Shergill for a reference for my F1 post and he stated that he could not remember me and advised me to try someone else. He forwarded this e-mail to members of the King’s Institute of Psychiatry without my consent (I refer to my email correspondence with Dr Shergill dated 6 November 2007, marked exhibit 42).



75. When Richard was my clinical partner he informed me that he did not want to work as a doctor and I became concerned at the inappropriate comments he was making in front of staff, students and patients. For example, on several occasions he told his housemate Shelly that women were best at home as their brains don’t function as well. Shelly complained to me about him. She stopped speaking to him for about one month although they continued to live in the same house. Richard had told me on a separate occasion that ‘the house belonged to Shelly’.



76. Before I moved away from Richard Pinder, Alexandra Weaver invited me for dinner at the house they shared. Richard Pinder informed me in front of a group of students that Ruth Desouza was “crazy and a bit weird’. He said that she needed an ‘operation on her brain’ as she had ‘problems with her brain’. He was laughing and making jest. I did not know Ruth Desouza at the time but some of the other students knew her and tried to change the subject. They appeared uncomfortable at what he was saying.



77. In 2004 Richard Pinder asked me:

“Do you sometimes feel that you are responsible for the fate of the

world?”

I told him that I believed that everyone’s actions have a cumulative

affect which eventually shapes the world, but that I didn’t feel

directly responsible. I asked whether he did and he responded:



“Yes, sometimes, I do”.



78. Later, I was also approached by a male Asian student that had worked with Richard, who informed me that Richard had dropped a baby. The student was very concerned and told me that Richard Pinder had thought it was funny. Richard approached as we were speaking and the Asian student repeated what he had told me in Richard’s presence. Richard confirmed that it was true, saying ‘Yeh, it was really funny, luckily the parents weren’t in the room so they did not know’. This behaviour was causing me a great deal of concern.



79. As I found it unbearable working with Richard and I did not wish to be implicated in his actions, on the week of 21 November 2005, I asked Alexander Porter (King's registry) to arrange for me to be moved away from Richard. Alex Porter was insistent that I made a written complaint against Richard as another female student had also complained about him. He stressed that the student who had made the complaint was ‘female’. I refused to make a formal complaint as I was afraid of what Richard would do. During our first year, Richard had told me that a male student had told his girlfriend (Christine) that he was ‘cheating on her’ and as a result he had broken up with his girlfriend. Richard told me that he knew another student disliked this boy and had told him something which provoked a fight. The student was injured in the fight and as a result of Richard’s actions he was suspended from the university. He told me that his girlfriend was more upset at their break up than he was. I was later informed by another student that Richard had broken up with Christine the day before her exams causing her to fail the exams.





80. I did not tell Richard that I had asked to be moved away from him as I hoped his behaviour towards me would normalise and we could maintain a working student relationship. I also knew that Richard Pinder was friendly with Dr Garlick, Professor Standring and Professor Rees (the Dean), so I was afraid of getting on the wrong side of him. He was well-connected, being a Young Conservative and claimed contact with the Health Secretary. (I refer to the email dated 28 March 2008, subject: ‘Make a difference: lead the NHS’, marked exhibit 43). He was also a member of the Officer Training Corps (OTC) and had contacts with other doctors within the hospitals. We also had mutual friends.



81. At the end of the clinical rotation Richard Pinder was annoyed when he found out that I had not been partnered with him for the next rotation. He told a group of students including myself that the College was 'stupid' for not placing us together. He said that he had sent e-mails to the College informing them that they were ‘stupid’ and that he had requested an explanation.



82. After I had moved away from Richard he was assigned to work with a clinical pair (making up a group of three). One of the members of this group (Ruth Desouza mentioned above) approached me whilst I was waiting at a bus stop and told me that Richard had caused problems between her and her clinical partner by telling her partner something to stir up trouble. As a result she had requested to be moved away from Richard and her clinical partner. She told me, that she had informed the College that she had to be moved to be closer to her Aunt.



83. At the end of the Neurology, Opthalmology and Psychiatry (NOP) rotation the firm consisting of Andrew Lui, Marianne Northover, Mariam Boutros, Jaish Puri, Richard Pinder and myself presented to our consultant Dr Sam Chong. At the end of the presentation Richard gave me a small box of chocolates in front of the group. He said that he had taken Cleo (his new girlfriend) to the launch for the De Beers ‘Talisman collection’ and he had kept the chocolates for me. I thanked him and opened the box. Jaish Puri and Richard began to smirk as I ate one of the chocolates. Mariam (Marie) Boutros asked for a chocolate and I offered her the box. As Mariam Boutros began to eat one of the chocolates Richard’s face dropped. Richard and Jaish Puri both stopped smirking. I offered the box to the other students including Richard but no one would take one. On my way home, I went to have another chocolate and I realised that the chocolates and the base of the box was damp. On a separate occasion I had witnessed Richard Pinder give his girlfriend’s brother a chocolate that he had dropped onto the floor. This made me concerned as to why he had saved the chocolates for me.



84. During a dinner at the house which Richard shared, Alex asked me if things were ‘OK’ between myself and Richard as “we didn’t appear as close as we used to be”. Richard was meant to have had dinner with us but left the house once I arrived without saying goodbye to me. At the time, I thought this was because he might have been informed that I had requested to be moved away from him.



85. At the end of the first term in 2005, Alex and Richard invited me to the house for dinner. Whilst I was at the house Richard invited me to his Catholic confirmation at an Opus Dai church in North London. He told me that his father would not be able to attend as he was ‘unwell’ and was suffering from mental illness. He said ‘this happened from time to time’. I felt very sorry for Richard and I thought that this could have explained his own behaviour. It occurred to me that he may have been indirectly trying to apologise for his own actions. I believed he was trying to tell me that he had acquired this condition. He then asked me if anyone in my family was affected and I told him that no one was but that I was sorry about his father and for what he was going through. He said that I would meet the rest of his family at the confirmation. I accepted his invitation and went downstairs. Alexandra Weaver then asked me if Richard had told me about his father. I confirmed that he had. She asked if I was coming to Richard’s confirmation and I told her that I would. Alexandra Weaver was also attending. I asked her if Richard was alright and she told me that she thought so. As a Christian I forgave Richard for what he had put me through.



86. As Alexander Weaver, my friend lived with Richard I tried to stay on good terms with Richard. He invited Alexander, Thomas James-Catell and myself to a free performance of an open air Opera in Covent Garden. I agreed to attend with the group, but at the last minute Alexander dropped out as she was going on a date. I went with Richard and Tom. After we had watched the screening we made our way to Pizza Express and Thomas James-Catell left us. After Thomas had left, Richard attempted to hold my arm. I felt very uncomfortable and pushed him away. On a number of occasions, students and staff implied that I was having a sexual relationship with Richard but I was not attracted to him and our friendship was purely platonic.



87. During a social outing, Anuvidya Reddy asked me if I had ‘moved away from Richard because he was ‘coming onto [me]’. Also, ‘Dr Rick’ (the SHO on my psychiatry rotation firm) told me that he was ‘sure there was something ‘going on between (us)’. I assured him that there was not. On one occasion, Alexandra Weaver asked me if I was attracted to Richard and I told her I was not. After that Richard told me that Alexandra Weaver had told him that she liked him and asked me if I liked anyone at the College. He also asked if I was ‘only allowed to date black men’. He asked me what sort of men I was attracted to. I told him they would have to be older and taller than me as well as attractive. Richard is shorter than me and younger so I assumed that he would get the message. Richard asked me if I liked anyone on the course and I told him that there was someone but that he didn’t know him. Richard asked the person’s name and I told him “Louis”. Richard then told me that I was the only girl that Christine (his ex-girlfriend) trusted him with as she didn’t believe that he would be attracted to me because I’m black. After this Alex asked me if Richard was ‘Louis’ and I said that he was not.



88. In February 2006, I organised a table for myself and the following students at the ‘Half Way Ball’ (I refer my email dated 12 February 2006 to the group of students, marked exhibit 44)

I) Anuvidya Reddy

II) Donald Massi

III) Kehinde Makanjuola

IV) Richard Pinder

V) Obinna Onyekwelu

VI) Jigna Patel

VII) Nana Owusu-Ansah

VIII) Sarah Nyame

IX) Su Lwin



89. Although I had moved away from Richard Pinder as a clinical partner, we still remained friends. I believed the decision not to tell him that I had asked to be moved away from him was the right one, and his behaviour towards me appeared to have normalised. We attended the half way ball together with other students and had a very enjoyable evening.



90. During the ball, Richard Pinder and I approached Professor Standring to greet her and she turned her back on us and walked off. We both followed her and I greeted her but she did not respond. Richard Pinder confirmed that he thought Professor Standring’s behaviour was very ‘odd’. I did not know why she was so hostile.



91. On 10 February 2006 for the ‘Grand Round Presentation’ I was assessed by Dr Stephanie Quast. She recorded that I gave an ‘excellent presentation of a complicated case’. She stated that I had ‘thoughtful Differential Diagnosis’, I was ‘thorough’, and ‘presented clear order of priority in assessment and management plan’ (I refer to the ‘Mark sheet for Grand Round Presentation in Phase 3a (for use by the firm teacher(s) assessing the Grand Round)’, marked exhibit 45).



92. In 2006, my mother paid for me to see a private consultant gynaecologist in St Mary’s Trust (I refer to the letter dated 27 September 2006, St Mary’s NHS Trust, marked exhibit 46). Miss Jenny Higham (Consultant Gynaecologist and Obstetrician) referred me back to the NHS as I was entitled to free treatment. She carried out a laparoscopy on me. I had been unwell leading up to, and during my exam period and informed the College. I was told that there was a small window in which to sit the exams, hence having to take the exams at the next available opportunity would have resulted in me having to take the exams the next academic year as a first attempt. I decided to attempt the exam before the operation which was pre- booked for 14 August 2006. I provided a sick note and spoke to staff at KCL (see e-mail dated 11 August 2006 from Tom Parkinson, marked exhibit 47 and medical certificate dated 4 August 2006, marked exhibit 48).



93. On the 15 August 2006, I checked my exam results and found that I had failed one written exam. Due to the exam arrangements that year, anyone who failed an exam was required to re-sit all the exams including the OSCE, which I had passed. I was distraught and my mother telephoned Richard Pinder for information about the re-sits. He informed her that there was a meeting that day for OSCE re-sit students. This was for students who had failed their ‘Incremental Clinical Examination’ ((ICE), an OSCE type exam), and/or failed their written exams. I was required to attend. My mother drove me to the university and had to physically support me as I walked. She had to assist me during the meeting. Dr Phillpott Howard saw us and my mother explained my situation to him. Due to the operation, I would not have been physically able to re-do the ICE which I passed with high marks. I had also attained merits in all my Special Study Modules that year. I informed Dr Howard that I had been operated on the previous day. My mother showed him my hospital surgical record and Dr Phillpott Howard asked if he could take a photocopy. I consented to this and it was passed onto Michelle Batten (Examinations and Assessment Administrator) at KCL. I submitted my mitigating circumstances form and request for Special Exam Arrangements. (I refer to form SN3 - Medical certificate for students of KCL requesting special examination arrangements, marked exhibit 49; form SN2 Application for Special Exam Arrangements 05-06 marked exhibit 50; and e-mail correspondence with Michelle Batten dated 15-16 August 2006, marked exhibit 51).



94. Dr Phillpott Howard and other College staff were very supportive. Jonathan Binalay acted as my invigilator. I sat my re-sit exam approximately 10 days after the operation on 22-24 August 2006 Despite being in pain from the operation, I managed to find an invigilator, study for and pass the exam.



95. In 2006 during rotation 1 of MBBS year 4 (EMDP year 5), I was placed to work at King’s College Hospital with Johanne Adly, Alexis Johnson, Amy Hufton, Sophie Moss and Simon Hill along with other students, forming a group of 14 students. I had no problems with any of the students (I refer to the chart Rotation 1, ‘CHDA Block, KCH’ marked exhibit 52). This was a few weeks before I was sent to Hastings to work with Simon Hill, Emily Bowen and Steven Dixon who racially harassed me (I refer to Paediatric Peripheral attachment sheet 2006-2007: marked exhibit 53).



RACIAL HARASSMENT AT HASTINGS



96. As part of my course, I was sent to work at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings. I was required to work with Emily Bowen, Steven Dixon and Simon Hill (all white and friends of Richard Pinder) and I was placed to share a flat with them. I was there from 12-30 November 2006.



97. During my time at the Conquest Hospital, I got on well with all the staff. All the medical staff were extremely supportive and helpful during my rotation. Dr Whincupp was my supervising consultant paediatrician who I saw on almost a daily basis. Dr Whincupp was standing in for Dr Nasar when he was on annual leave. Dr Nasar signed me off at the end of my attachment. ( He marked my log book ‘attendance, participation in firm activities, courtesy to staff and patients, punctuality, acceptance of advice and confidentiality’ as ‘satisfactory’ (I refer to my log book peripheral attachment sheet-CHDA, marked exhibit 54 )



98. Although I did not have any problems with the staff at the Conquest Hospital, I was racially harassed by the students I was placed to work with. On 13 November 2006, the first day of the clinical attachment, I was inside the hospital with Emily Bowen and Steven Dixon and suggested that we should exchange mobile telephone numbers. I thought it was a reasonable suggestion so I was surprised that Emily reacted with hostility. She shouted, ‘no, we are not swapping, why do we need to swap numbers?’ Steven Dixon, who was her clinical partner at the time, interrupted Emily to dampen things down and said to me ‘well, I will give you my number’. There were no other problems that day and when Simon Hill arrived in the evening, I took him to the local Tesco to show him where it was.



99. During the first few days, I had wedged my bedroom door open as I studied and Emily Bowen came into my room. She appeared pleasant and asked me if I had already started to revise for the exams. I confirmed that I had and she asked me what books I was reading. I showed her the books. She saw my bible by my bed and must have told Simon Hill. A few days later he came up to me and said: 'I don't like people who throw their religion in my face'. He was aggressive and as we had not been involved in any discussions, I found his behaviour strange. I did not respond but went into my room.



100. Whilst working with Simon, he referred to all black people as Afro-Caribbean. He called a mixed race girl on the television a ‘fuck face’. I felt that he was trying to make me feel uncomfortable by his constant emphasis on race and by showing his distain for black and ethnic minority people. On one occasion he told the other students, "the nurses are great here, might have some fun, not like in King's ‘cos they're all Afro-Caribbean!”.



101. The racial harassment appeared to begin within a few days of the placement beginning. As I had arrived before the other students, I had taken one of the large communal mugs provided for us and used it to make tea for myself. After I had washed it, I reused it. This was on the second day. When Emily saw me using the mug, she became angry saying she did not see why only one person should use the big mug and that we should all have a turn using it. Simon and Steven supported her and she demanded that I should give her the mug to use. There were other mugs in the kitchen and I had tea in it at the time. To keep the peace, I washed the mug and gave it to Emily once I finished drinking my tea. In my presence, Emily, Simon and Steven discussed who they would allow to use the mug next. I was not included. Steven then filled the mug up with tea but did not drink from it. As I thought they were being so petty, I purchased my own mug. The ‘big mug’ Steven used was left full and unwashed for the remainder of the rotation.



102. Towards the end of the second week, Emily Bowen and Simon Hill asked me if I was staying (at Hastings) for the weekend. When I confirmed that I was, they saved up their dirty dishes. Before they left for the weekend they piled up their dishes in the kitchen sink, put the plug in and filled it to the top with water. It was so full that I was unable to use the sink without putting my hand into the dirty water to pull the plug out. As there were no clean cooking utensils left for me to use, I was forced to wash their dirty pots, dishes and cutlery in order to cook myself.



103. I complained to the group about them deliberately piling up the sink with the dirty dishes and cutlery. I asked them not to do it again. Simon and Steven laughed about it. I asked Simon Hill and Steve Dixon why they were being so rude to me and treating me badly. Simon Hill laughed loudly and shouted to Steve Dixon “well, what do you expect, she’s Richard Pinder’s ex-clinical partner after all”.



104. Simon Hill was constantly referring to race and immigration. He told me that the “immigrants are spoiling the UK”. I pointed out that most of the immigrants at the time were Polish and helping to keep the economy going. He responded that the “Polish are okay, at least they're European’. When I told the group that I was partly Welsh, Steven Dixon responded “Welsh people, they're all sheep shaggers”. He also said that Welsh people “aren’t really British”. He did not elaborate on why he believed this. Their utterances made it clear that this was not just an attack on non- white immigrants but was targeted at me.



105. There were two shower rooms in the flat, one evening I came out of the shower closest to my room to find the group by the shower door. One of them was going into the other shower and they were having discussions as to who would go in after him. These discussions took place on a daily basis as they would not use the shower room I was using. These discussions took place in my presence to make me aware of their rota system for the other showed.



106. One morning I went into the communal living room to find the group having breakfast. The television was on, and there was a news item discussing whether Tony Blair should apologise for Britain’s role in slavery. As I entered the room, Simon shouted at me ‘Do you think Tony Blair should apologise for slavery?’ Without letting me answer he said, ‘I don’t think he should.’ He asked Emily what she thought and I carried on getting my breakfast. As I was trying to eat my breakfast, he asked me again, ‘Do you think Tony Blair should apologise for slavery? Surely you should have an opinion’. I told him that if it would help to build bridges within the community it would be a good thing. Simon shouted, “I don’t think so. There is nothing to apologise for”. I told him that I am not Caribbean but of Nigerian and Welsh origin but that some people within the Caribbean /West Indian communities are still suffering the consequences of the slave trade due to the breakdown of the family and the stigma now attached to Black people. Simon told me that the immigrant communities shouldn’t think they should be able to stay in the UK and complain - especially when they are using the resources and spoiling Britain. I pointed out to him that the majority of immigrants coming to the UK now are Polish and not from Africa or India. He told me, “Yeh, well at least they’re European”. Simon Hill carried on repeating himself and added that ‘things were much better in colonial times before they messed things up’. Emily Bowen agreed with him, then added that “we should introduce a virus into Africa to wipe out the continent so that we [Caucasians] can move in”. She and Simon Hill laughed whilst Steven Dixon sneered at me and left the room.



107. The harassment by the students continued whilst I was working at the hospital. Simon Hill continued to repeat the same racist joke in my presence (3 or more times). On the first occasion, I had walked into the common room in the student flat where he was sitting with Emily Bowen. He said to us, “I have a joke for you! A man went to the deepest, darkest, depths of Africa and was summoned by the tribe chief elder. The elder said: 'you've been sleeping with our women, that's why the babies are pale’”. Simon then explained that they didn't realise that black babies don't have all their melanin when they're born. He said, “you know Afro-Caribbean babies! So the man says to the chief, 'You see those sheep over there and you see how they're all white and there is that black one? Well it's like that. It's called natural selection'. The chief says to the man, ‘Well if you don't tell about the sheep, we won't tell about the babies’". I was very offended and walked out of the room after he had said it. I carried on getting ready to go to the hospital. Simon repeated this joke to Dr Wincupp (white), Dr Bevir (white) and Steve Dixon (white) in my presence. It was obvious that the repetition was intended to offend and humiliate me. On one occasion when he started to tell the joke to Steve Dixon (in a consultation room at the hospital), I walked off as he was upsetting me. I went into one of the toilets expecting him to have finished by the time I got back. When I returned he continued with the joke from the point where I had left. On a separate occasion he repeated the joke to Dr Bevir (during a pre-grand round lunch) and I walked away to the other side of the hall and stayed there.



108. On 29 November 2006, I informed the group that I intended to buy a box of biscuits or a small gift for the medical staff as they were due to attend our presentation. I asked them if they wanted to contribute. Steven Dixon and Simon Hill appeared to be making jest and did not properly respond. They laughed together by the front door and whispered to each other. Simon Hill then shouted at me, ‘Do you want to come to the cinema?’ I refused to go and told them I was going to buy the gift. They left without giving me any money towards the gift. As I was about to leave, Emily told me she would come with me as she was going to the shop. I chose a box of biscuits of approximately £10.00 and bought a thank you card. Emily Bowen said she wanted to contribute and gave me her share towards the gift. In the morning I asked them all to sign the card. The intention was to give the medical staff that we had worked with the biscuits and card at the end of our presentations.



109. On the day of our presentations, only our supervising doctor, Dr Bevir (Simon Hill’s rugby friend) and our supervising consultant, Dr Nasar, turned up. After our presentations we waited to have our sheets signed. We were also waiting for the other doctors to arrive so we could thank them and give them the card and gift. I left the room to go to the toilet and when I returned Steven shouted “I’ve told him about the biscuits already, we’re going. Dr Nasar thanked me and told me he would give them to his secretary. I took out the biscuits and thanked Dr Nasar and explained that it was just to show our appreciation towards all the medical staff that had helped us. Simon, Steve and Emily began to smirk and snear at me. I later asked them why they hadn’t waited for me and Simon said ‘oh, well’ and they left. As Dr Nasar was signing my sheet Steven, Emily and Simon sent a nurse in to take the biscuits. As I came out of the room, Simon and Steven were shouting to the other nurses that they had got them biscuits and the nurses were thanking them. The group walked ahead of me, turning back and laughing at me.



110. The group made their way back to the student accommodation ahead of me. When I arrived they had already packed to leave but had left the flat in a mess. I asked Simon and Steve for their contribution towards the gift and told them that what they did was unfair. They virtually threw the money at me. As all students were expected to clean the kitchen before leaving, I reminded Emily about the dishes they had left as I was not prepared to clean up after them again. I had already cleaned up after myself and did not want to lose my deposit due to their mess. Emily began to shout and swear at me calling me a ‘silly cow’. The boys were also shouting and making jest. Steven then told me that they had already been to see Nikki the student coordinator at the hospital. When I began to cry, Simon told Emily sarcastically, “Awe, you’re going to make her cry!” As they all continued to shout at me, I went to finish my packing. I was distressed and they continued shouting whilst I was packing. When their taxi arrived Simon Hill shouted at me sarcastically, ‘Have a nice day!’ and slammed the front door.



111. I went to meet the student co-ordinator, Nikki, to hand back my keys before my taxi arrived. It was the first time I had met her and she could see I was distressed. She asked me to sit down and I began to cry again. I told her that I was upset at the way I had been treated by the other students in my flat. I expressed my concern that Simon Hill was a close friend of my supervising doctor. I was afraid this would result in me being unfairly marked. She asked if it was just one student mistreating me. I told her that as individuals they hardly did anything but when they got together as a group they egged each other on. She said she understood as she had been in a similar situation with a group of girls who acted like a ‘pack of wolves’ when they got together. She said she would speak to one of the coordinators at my university. I had to leave as my taxi arrived to take me to the station.



112. Following my discussions with Nikki, I was contacted by Catherine Smith who sent me a ‘special circumstances form’. When I spoke to her, she told me I had to fill in the form for adjustments to be made to ensure that I did not have to work with Simon Hill or share accommodation with him again. On 4 December 2006 I submitted a Special Circumstances form indicating that I had been subjected to bullying and harassment by the above named individuals and requested to be placed on a different firm from them for the duration of my course at KCL. I requested that I should not continue to be placed to work with Simon Hill at Woolwich or placed to share accommodation with him. (I refer to e-mail dated 4 December 2006 to Catherine Smith, marked exhibit 55 and Special Circumstances form dated 2 December 2006, marked exhibit 56).



POST HASTING’S



113. I told Richard Pinder about the racial harassment I had been subjected to at Hastings and asked him why Simon Hill would justify their harassment of me by saying I was ‘Richard’s clinical partner’. Richard told me he was shocked and that it was disgraceful if they had behaved in that manner. He could not give me any explanation as to why he was mentioned. He gave me the impression that he did not know the group very well but said that Steve Dixon had a reputation for being nasty, sarcastic and flippant and that he was not surprised that I had problems with him.



114. I also informed Ahmed Dire, Johanne Adley, Alexis Johnson and Donald Masi about the racial harassment that I had been subjected to at Hastings. They were all shocked. Johanne Adly and Alexis Johnson told me that during the rotation, Simon Hill had been ‘fine’ and that they were ‘shocked’ that he would have behaved in such a way. I agreed that I did not expect that sort of behaviour from them. Johanne Adly and Alexis Johnson told me they were going to tell Sophie Moss and Amy Hufton. Sophie Moss had asked Johanne Adly why I was so unhappy and what we were discussing.



115. At a party I attended, another student, Luchiana, informed me that she had heard about the incidents in Hastings and that she knew Steve (Steven Dixon) as she used to live with him. She told me that he could be ‘really difficult’ and ‘funny’. On another occasion Athanasia Veragamidou (aka Nancy), told me that she knew Steven Dixon as a ‘nasty’ person. Also on a separate occasion Yenphan Ta visited my home and told me that she could not believe that Emily Bowen would behave in such a racist manner as she was a prominent member of the Christian society. Yenphan Ta and Emily Bowen had a mutual friend (Nina).



116. After my discussion with Richard Pinder, I was surprised that he moved to sit with the Hastings group (Simon Hill, Steven Dixon and Emily Bowen) along with Thomas James-Catell, Emily Cooper and Alexandra Weaver. This was during campus block lectures. Simon Hill, Steven Dixon and Emily Bowen often turned around during lectures to point me out to students that I did not know. Shortly after this Alexandra Weaver, who I had regarded as a close friend became reluctant to associate with me. Thomas James-Catell and Emily Cooper, with whom I had been on good terms, began to shun me. I was the victim but I was being portrayed as the villain. I hoped things would die down as it was distracting me from my studies.



117. When I asked Richard Pinder why he had began to sit with the ‘Hasting’s group’ he told me that it was because Thomas James-Catell was friends with them. I told Richard Pinder that I was considering making a formal complaint about their behaviour due to the seriousness of Emily Bowen, Steven Dixon and Simon Hill’s comments. I told him that someone had mentioned that Emily Bowen may be going to South-Africa for her elective placement and I was concerned as to the safety of her patients there. He said that it was quite possible she was going to South Africa but could be hearsay as most placements were yet to be confirmed.



118. During rotation 2, 2006, I had a meeting with Dr Caroline Bradbeer for her to sign my log book. I apologised that I had not been able to attend at an earlier date. This was because my mother had been packing to move flats and as my clinical placement was outside London I had to stay there. Dr Bradbeer asked: “Oh, you’re being re-housed by the council then?” I was very offended by her stereotypical assumptions and by her constant prying into the private lives of both myself and my mother. I felt that my meetings with her were becoming increasingly difficult due to her attitude and intrusive questions. Dr Bradbeer had a large black book where she recorded hand written notes during our meetings. On one occasion she forgot to close the book as she left her desk. When she realised, she panicked and rushed back to her desk to close the book.





ELECTIVE PLACEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA AND ST LUCIA



119. From January 2007, I started to make definite arrangements for my elective placement abroad. My mother had contacts in South Africa and made arrangements for me to work at the Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg. (I refer to the witness statements of Ms Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 57 and Mr Tunde Majekodunmi marked exhibit 58).



120. On 20 April 2007, Michelle Cross-Glasgow (KCL senior Registry Officer) provided a statement that my ‘progress and attendance are satisfactory’ and that I was ‘expected to complete the programme and qualify as a Doctor in July 2008’. (I refer to the letter dated 20 April 2007 from Michelle Cross-Glasgow, marked exhibit 59)



121. Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan (aka Siva, EMDP student and Emon Malik’s clinical partner), had been one of my friends. We discussed our elective arrangements together and she told me she was going on a group elective with Alexis Johnson, Johanne Adley, Jaskiren Kaur and Emon Malik. Alexis Johnson, Johanne Adley and Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan were all EMDP students. I had known them from the beginning of my course, and they were amongst the first people I met at university. Siva asked me to join them and I explained that I had already finalised my placement in Johannesburg. She informed me that her group would be splitting their elective into two - 4 week placements. I agreed to do the same, spending 4 weeks in South Africa and 4 weeks in St Lucia. I was very excited about the elective placement abroad and I was especially looking forward to being with the group in St Lucia. I had got on well with Alexis Johnson, Johanne Adley, Jaskiren Kaur and Emon Malik. We knew each other socially and had many mutual friends. We often arranged to meet for lunch at Nando’s when we were working at the same campus. Alexamder Weaver had introduced me to Emon Malik and I had worked with Emon Malik for a short time on the Paediatric Society. We had got on well together. I often met Jaskiren Kaur at parties and other social events and we got on well.



122. Emon Malik (the daughter of a KCL Senior Lecturer and Examiner, Mrs F. Malik) was making all their group elective arrangements and asked me to provide her with a copy of my CV. She told me that she needed it to forward on to staff at our elective hospital. Emon secured the placement at the Victoria Hospital, St Lucia and assumed responsibility for the placement and accommodation. She told us that a ‘friend of her’ had gone to the same place during a previous year (I refer to the e-mail correspondence between members of the group travelling to St Lucia dated: 12 March 2007; 15 April 2007; 17 April 2007; 29 June 2007; 9 July 2007, marked as exhibit 60).



123. As I was going to work in South Africa which has a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, it was essential that I obtained a Post Exposure Prophylaxis Pack (PEP Pack). This is a course of medication taken post exposure to prevent or reduce the chances of acquiring HIV on exposure to blood products, bodily fluids and other contaminated material. Alexander Porter (registry) informed all the MBBS 4 medical students that we would not be provided with PEP packs for our elective placements unless we agreed to be tested for HIV. The funding normally available to provide free PEP packs to all medical students had been withdrawn that year. The College would only issue PEP packs to students who paid for it and had the HIV test done and provided to the GKT Occupational Health department. Dr Richard Phillips also informed the group that the GMC had made changes regarding the re-classification of medical students at King’s making it compulsory that we should be tested for HIV. He told us that failure to have the tests may result in us not being allowed to begin the clinical part of MBBS 5 as some of the hospitals would refuse to allow us to begin ward work. The MBBS 5 (final year MBBS, EMDP year 6) curriculum is almost entirely clinical in its content. Not being permitted to begin the clinical aspect of the year, would have caused me to fail the in-course assessment. This would have prevented me from meeting the criteria for examination entry. Hence I would not have qualified as a doctor.



124. I was reluctant to be tested as I had no reason to be tested and I was concerned about future insurance and other implications of being tested. On 12 July 2007 I gave blood for the HIV and Hepatitis test at GKT Occupational Health Department. I was provided with my PEP Pack before any actual analysis was carried out. (I refer to the Guys and St Thomas’ (Confidential) Report printed by RRS dated 20 July 2007; marked exhibit 61). I was not provided with the test results until I had completed my 4 week placement in South Africa and begun my placement in St Lucia. Therefore, the PEP packs were provided to us on the basis of us giving blood to the College rather than on our HIV status.



125. This was the first year of compulsory testing of medical student’s at KCL and coincided with a study to analyse blood results to determine why some people remain uninfected with HIV despite exposure to the virus. (I refer to King’s College Hospital HIV study seeking volunteers, 30 November 2007, marked exhibit 62; and King’s College Hospital – CHAVI research into HIV immunity in partnership with KCL, marked exhibit 63). Professor Philippa Easterbrook (Head of Department of HIV/GUM) at King’s College was leading the study. Dr Caroline Bradbeer of the female Lydia clinic and Dr Cindy Sethi of the male Lloyd clinic (to which Dr Bradbeer inappropriately referred me) worked as consultants in HIV and GUM. (I refer to the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust general information from website marked exhibit 64). I believe that I along with other students may have been used in this research without our consent.



126. On 21 August 2008 I spoke to Harminder Braich (GMC) who informed me that there was no change in the classification of medical students by the GMC and that any reclassification and HIV testing policy was the decision of KCL and not the GMC.



127. As most of my clinical placements were outside London, I had not met with Richard or spoken to him for some time. I had not discussed my elective arrangements with him. However, before I travelled to Johannesburg, Richard told me that he and Alexander Weaver were having a pre-elective dinner and he invited me to the house. When I arrived, I was surprised to find that Alexander had gone out. Richard’s other flat mates, Joanne Lau and Michelle, were there. Richard asked if I was going to have the HIV test done with the College. I told him that as I was going to South-Africa and needed to take a PEP pack so I had no choice. Richard laughed and when I asked him why he was laughing he told me that he had been tested and that they had bruised his arm. He told me that he knew other students going to South Africa and asked what part I was going to. When I told him Johannesburg, he said, ‘you’re going on Elective with Emon, aren’t you’. I asked him how he knew. He laughed again and said, ‘Oh, Emon, she’s a good friend of mine’. He then said sarcastically, ‘Have a nice time!’ and continued to laugh. As he was laughing he said ‘make sure you do not get attacked in South Africa and come back alive’. I found his laughter irrational and found his behaviour very odd. The other students looked shocked by his remarks.



128. Prior to my elective placement in South Africa my mobile telephone had been stolen as I was having lunch with Aisha Jainah and Anna Bahk at New Hunt’s House Café, Guy’s Campus. Following Richard’s behaviour, I decided not to give him my new number as I did not want him to contact me.



129. I began my 4 week placement at the Coronation Hospital in Johannesburg on 23 July 2007. When I arrived at my placement, I was pleasantly surprised to find that there were a number of other KCL elective students at the hospital. As they were from my year, most of them knew me and knew that Richard had been my clinical partner. One of the boys told me that Richard had mentioned to him that I would be working at the hospital. The King’s elective students were at ‘Barra’ (Baragwaneth, South Africa) Hospital. They often discussed other KCL students on elective placements around the world. They were able to maintained contact using ‘Facebook’.



130. During my placement in Johannesburg, a Black South African medical student was attacked and raped whilst carrying out a ‘simple errand’ (walking to the blood bank) ‘in a secure area…’ (I refer to ‘The Star’, news article Wednesday 1 August 2007, marked exhibit 65). The newspaper reported that the student had undergone a ‘full medical examination and antiretroviral drugs’ were administered. The incident took place at the Chris Hani-Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto. There were false rumours circulating that it was a foreign Black medical student. I was the only foreign Black medical student at the hospital. Many of the King's elective students (who were from my year) asked me if I had been ‘safe’ as they had been informed that a Black foreign medical student had been attacked. I had been unaware that the incident had taken place until another King's elective student approached me. The elective coordinator also sent me a message by email asking if I had been 'safe' as she had heard the rumour. When the elective coordinator met me, she asked again if I had been safe. She told me that she had been in communication with KCL management due to their concerns about the safety of their students.



131. My grandmother who was on holiday at the time purchased the local newspaper and also informed me about the medical student being raped. That same week, my photograph was in the local newspaper attending a jazz club with friends (I refer to the ‘Sowetan Time Out’ in pictures, 3 August 2007, marked exhibit 66). All the students and staff were very shocked and outraged by the attack and rape of the medical student. There was a demonstration in protest at the lack of lighting and security in the area.



132. I had a very happy and successful placement working in Paediatric medicine in Johannesburg. One of the Doctors that I had become friendly with, Dr Elizabeth Ho, asked me to remain in South Africa for the remaining 4 weeks of my elective instead of travelling to St Lucia. Dr Ho had invited me to her family home on a number of occasions and all the staff were very friendly. (I refer to the email correspondence from Dr Ho dated 8 September 2007, marked exhibit 67) My elective supervisor, Professor Bolton (white) regarded me as an ‘excellent’ medical student. His general comments on my overall performance were that I was ‘diligent and attentive’ and a ‘very good advertisement for (my) institution!’. (I refer to the letter dated 17 August 2007 from Coronation Hospital; marked exhibit 68).



133. On 24 August 2007, I was due to travel to St Lucia with Emon Malik, Johanne Adly, Jaskiren Kaur, Alexis Johnson and Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan. Before the elective began, we had arranged a group booking and had pre-allocated seats. (I refer to the Sta Travel Itinerary sheet booked by Ms Emon Malik, printed 18 April 2007, marked exhibit 69). When I arrived back in the UK from South Africa, I spoke to Siva who informed me that Emon was organising ‘everything’. I confirmed my seat on-line and telephoned Emon to provide her with my seat number so that we could sit together. As ‘Hurricane Dean’ had devastated the Island, there were very few passengers on the flight to St Lucia so there were many free seats around me. We made arrangements to meet at Garwick Airport.



134. I arrived at the airport at approx. 5.15 am – much earlier than anyone else. The flight was due to depart at 9.15 am from Gatwick. I was the second person to check in for the flight. I telephoned Emon to inform her that I was at the airport and that I had checked in. She told me they were not yet at the airport and that she would call me when they arrived. I also sent text messages to Emon, Jaskiren and Siva. I waited for the group for approx. 2 hours. Emon, Siva and Jaskiren both told me to continue to wait for them at a café near the check-in area where they would come to meet me. Instead of coming to meet me, the group went through security into the departure lounge without telling me. I waited for them for over 3 hours 15 minutes. During this time I telephoned my mother to express my concern that the rest of the group had not come to meet me. She advised me to go through security due to the extra long security checks, and potential problems with my medical supplies etc. My grandmother, Anne Giwa-Amu also called as I had been suffering from food poisoning from South Africa. She was also concerned that the other students had not met up with me as planned. She was very concerned that I might be travelling on my own.



135. As I was trying to send Siva a text message when Siva phoned me. I told her that I was going to start making my way through security as it was approaching boarding time. She informed me that they had already gone through security and were waiting in the departure lounge. I was shocked and realised that I only had 45 minutes to get through security to board the flight. This meant that I could have missed my flight due to the security checks.



136. I found the group sitting down in the departure lounge. I greeted them and asked what had happened. Emon said “Oh, Virginia, Lexi [Alexis Johnson] had a problem with her baggage allowance” and “ it’s all fine and we’re all checked in on the same row, accept you’re on the other side of the plane”. I was shocked and confused. If she had told me the day before or at check in I could have changed my seat to sit with them. As it was 15 minutes to boarding time, I went to use the toilet. We then went to board the plane.



137. As I was still recovering from food poisoning I sat quietly during the flight. The group did not bother with me until about 3 hours into the flight when Siva asked ‘Where’s Virginia, is she okay?’ and Emon shouted across the aircraft at me, ‘Oh Virginia, are you okay?’ Her tone was sarcastic and I felt embarrassed. I could not understand their behaviour. The flight was 8 hours 45 minutes and due to the time difference we arrived at 13.00 pm on 24 August 2007.



138. We got a mini bus taxi from the airport to the villa (Cashew Cottage). When we arrived the others went into the villa ahead of me. I was trying to smooth things over. As I was taking my luggage into the villa the group were already sitting in the living room. Jaskiren asked the others “Oh, where’s Gini going to sleep?” referring to me. It appeared that they had already decided to have the beds and assumed that I would sleep on the floor. Prior to our arrival, Emon had informed us that there would be 5 beds and a sofa bed in the living room. We were meant to take it in turns to sleep on the sofa bed. There were only 4 beds and no sofa-bed. Emon took an inflatable mattress out of a cupboard and said “oh, I will be one of the ones to sleep on the floor first”. The group then looked at me. As I knew that my period was due in 2 weeks time, I thought if I had to sleep on the floor it would be better for me to do so on arrival rather than when ill. The other girls rushed to claim their beds. (I refer to the e-mail dated 30 August 2007: 1:51:52, sent to my mother Anne Giwa-Amu: marked exhibit 70).



139. On the day of our arrival, Emon decided that we should go to ‘explore’ the surrounding area. We all went into the garden and made our way down a dirt road. Emon Malik began to pressurise me to reveal my HIV test results. As the five students stood facing me, she asked if anyone had received their HIV test results. She said that she knew that she was fine because ‘at least she was a virgin’. Jas cringed and looked very embarrassed and worried. As it was obviously directed at me, I said that I was sure all of us were fine and had nothing to worry about. I had not received my test results at this stage.



140. Emon Malik informed the group that the safe was available for use, and suggested that we all put our tickets and passports into it. The safe was small and portable and I realised that it could have been lifted up and stolen. I refused to do so, as I wished to have control and immediate access to my ticket, passport and money in case of an emergency. Emon Malik appeared unhappy at my decision. Jaskiren Kaur asked me why I had refused to put my belongings into the safe and also tried to pressurise me to do so. Emon said that she had brought about £550 with her and asked how much I had brought. I told her I was fine for money.



141. Emon announced to the group that there was only one set of keys so she was going to ‘keep it on [her]’. She tied the key to the front of her skirt which had a draw string. This meant that no one could go out or come into the villa without informing Emon. To my knowledge she did not allow anyone else to hold the key.



142. Emon Malik referred to Richard Pinder on a regular basis. She also said that she was chatting with Richard Pinder on ‘Facebook’. She commented on the fact that I had been his clinical partner. She said that they were ‘great friends’ and he was a lovely guy (I refer to emails dated 30 August 2007 sent to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 71).



143. On one occasion, I was sitting in the living room with the group. Emon told Alexis that she could tell that Alexis had developed a ‘slight tan’. Emon commented on how fair she (Emon) was and how she was not allowed to go in the sun. Emon said of herself, that she didn’t look as though she has been abroad at all but that she shouldn’t anyway. She explained that she was being treated with laser for hair removal and had to use a special sun block. She then told Johanne that she could see that she had ‘tanned slightly’, she moved on to Jas and then Siva commenting that she could see that they had tanned. When she got to me she smiled and said sarcastically “Oh, Virginia, I can’t tell if you’ve tanned at all”. She was smirking and the others were silent. I felt that her intention was to offend and ridicule me.



144. Emon also implied her ‘racial superiority’. She stated that she was of ‘a higher caste than other Indians’. She highlighted racial differences within the group and told me that she would refer to me as ‘Black Girl’ as that was what the maid had called me. I told her that I “would not appreciate it” if she did that. I was very offended by this and found her comments highly offensive and upsetting. I felt she was trying to humiliate and upset me without reason. (I refer to e-mail dated 30 August 2007: 2:16:47 sent to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 72).



145. During a group evening out, I had gone into a night club with Alexis, Johanne and Jas whilst Emon and Siva walked around. Emon had promised her grandmother that she would not go into any clubs. When we came out of the club, it began to rain. We met up with Emon and Siva and waited for our transport to take us back to the Villa. As I was waiting, Emon came over to me and without cause suddenly stamped on my left foot. I said ‘Emon, can’t you say sorry, you just stamped on my foot and you have really hurt me.’ She shouted sarcastically, ‘oh, did I hurt you?’ I looked at the others who were all looking at me and Emon. We waited in silence until the taxi came. I was very upset as she had injured my toe. This caused damage to the nail bed (I refer to the medical report, letter from Minor Injuries dated 22 October 2007, marked exhibit 73).



146. One afternoon, the group had finished cooking and began to eat outside. I began to cook noodles and left them on the stove in the kitchen to join the others outside. Alexis Johnson went into the kitchen. She had not been cooking anything. I made my way to the kitchen to see if my noodles were cooked. As I was coming around the corner of the kitchen I could see Alexis through the windows scooping something from the floor with her hands before dusting her hands above my food that was cooking on the stove. When she heard or saw me approaching Alexis hurriedly left the kitchen. She did not take anything from the kitchen or do anything else in there. When I checked my food there were flies in it. Alexis and Joanne refused to shop with me and didn’t want to cook with me or eat the same food as me. On previous occasions Emon Malik, Alexis Johnson and Joanne Adley had been trying to identify my food from the rest of the group. (I refer to e-mail dated 30 August 2007: 01:05:26 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 72 already mentioned).



147. The group would not eat at the table with me (I refer to e-mail dated 30 August 2007; 01:57 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 71).



148. On 27 or 28 August 2007, the swimming pool had been cleaned so we all sat around the pool. The others swam but I didn’t. I sat with the group and I was wearing shorts. Emon took photographs of everyone. She then focused on me appeared to be trying to look for flaws. She went into the pool with the camera to obtain a very unflattering and revealing photograph of me. This highlighting the cellulite on my legs. Later she announced she was going to load them onto Face book. When Jas saw the photo she had taken of me, Jas gasped. Emon laughed and said she was going to upload them. I asked if she would please delete them but she continued to laugh. She refused to delete them from her camera. She asked me if I was on ‘Facebook’ and I told her that I was not. Being on ‘Facebook’ would have allowed me to remove or block ‘tagged’ photographs, and view photographs of myself.



149. The group would not shop with me but asked me to contribute towards the hurricane equipment that they purchased. (I refer to the e-mail dated 30 August 2007 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 72).



150. The group sought to marginalise me and planned trips without involving me in the decision making. (I refer to the e-mail dated 29 August 2007 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 74)



151. When Jaskiren told Emon to be a bit ‘nicer’ to me, Emon shouted to Johanne, ‘Do you remember when I got that teacher sacked because I did not like him?’ Johanne replied, ‘Oh, yeh, and you said he had a nervous breakdown after that!’ They both laughed about it. Emon went onto explain that she made up allegations that the teacher had sexually molested her as her mother had told her not to let anyone ‘touch her down there’. She said that her family were so powerful that she had got the teacher sacked just because she did not like him. She said that when she does not like people she ‘gets rid of them’ (I refer to the e-mail dated 30 August 2007 2:16:47 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 72 ).



152. Emon Malik’s behaviour was bizarre and erratic. On one occasion I was in the kitchen with Emon and Jas. Emon was being rude and when I asked her why she was being so rude to me, she began singing ‘Barney the Dinosaur’ songs telling the other students to ‘come on in and join the fun’ and laughing. Alexis and Johanne came into the kitchen and I left.



153. On 29 August 2007, I was alone in the bedroom and upset at the way I was being treated. Johanne Adley had come into the bedroom and said I did not seem very happy. She asked why I was not swimming and if it was because I had my period. I told her it was due to the treatment I was receiving from the group but especially from Emon. She left me and went into Emon’s room where the rest of the group also were. I then heard Emon shout ‘Bitch!’. (I refer to the e-mail dated 30 August 2007: 00:06:33 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 75 ).



154. On the evening of 29 August 2007 and during 30 August 2007 I made definite arrangements to move out of the Cashew Cottage (I refer to e-mails dated 29-30 August to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibits 75, 76, 78 & 79). Marilese, the maid, asked me why I was leaving. I told her that the group were making me feel uncomfortable and being rude to me. She said that she noticed that the group was ‘separated by race’ during our shopping trips and outings and that I was left by myself. (I refer to the e-mail dated 31 August 2007:18:03:00, Virginia Jibowu to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 77). When I asked Marilese at a later date if she was willing to provide a witness statement, she apologised saying that she couldn’t as her employer had told her ‘not to get involved with the client’s problems’ and she didn’t want to lose her job. I told her that I understood.



155. On 30 August 2007, I was forced to move out of the Villa. My mother had made contact with someone in her workplace who assisted. My mother did not know the man that was asked to collect me. He was extremely kind and helpful and moved me to safe accommodation. On my mother’s advice, I told Jaskiren Kaur that I was going to stay with a friend of the family for a week as we did not know how safe the accommodation would be ( I refer to e-mail dated 30 August, 2007:18:05 to Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 78)



156. As I packed to move out of the villa, Alexis saw me and asked if I was leaving. She went to tell the others. Jaskiren Kaur took photographs of me and Johanne Adly followed her. They were laughing and making fun. When I asked Jaskiren why she was taking photographs of me she laughed and said it was because Johanne was pulling faces behind me. (I refer to e-mail dated 31 August 2007, 00:51:21 and e-mails dated 30 August 2007 between the claimant and Anne Giwa-Amu, marked exhibit 79).



157. Due to the emergency, my mother had borrowed money from a friend to pay for the new accommodation. We were both very annoyed and upset at the way I had been treated. I wrote to Emon asking for a refund but she and the other girls became evasive. My mother posted a letter of claim to Emon’s UK home address as I had not seen them on placement for some time and I was running out of money. (I refer to the letters dated 02 September 2007 to Emon Malik, marked exhibit 80 and the letter dated 09 September 2007 to Emon Malik, marked exhibit 81).



158. On 19 September 2007, I made a complaint to Dr Lewis (Elective Co-ordinator at Victoria Hospital, St Lucia) and the Dean of the Hospital. Dr Lewis had told me that the hospital would have to consider whether to accept students from KCL in the future if that was how the other students had behaved. One of the doctors I had been working with later asked me why I had not told her earlier about the way I was being treated. She told me that the staff had complained about the ‘white’ girls’ at the hospital working in Medicine/Internal Medicine. She asked me if that was where they were located. I do not know where they had been located. I was told that staff had been complaining about the attitude of a group of students towards the local staff and patients.



159. The Dean and Elective Coordinator told me that they would be sending a letter of complaint to KCL on my behalf. The letter disclosed to me under the Data Protection Act stated: ‘On Wednesday September 19th, Ms Jibowu came to my office visibly distressed…She was trying to locate the other members of her group. I assumed they were on the wards. Investigation showed they had finished their elective period on Monday 17th…Ms Jibowu…showed me a letter she had emailed to Ms Malik…I was appalled by the contents of the letter… I spoke with…regarding the matter and…informed me that…assessments would have been different [if they] had…prior knowledge of the contents of the letter. We both would like it known that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated at this hospital, especially from people who will shortly be doctors and trust that any future students from your very highly regarded establishment will not behave in similar fashion.’ (I refer to the facsimile from Victoria Hospital, St Lucia, dated 21 September 2007 (provided by KCL under my Data Protection Act request)) marked exhibit 82 ).



160. During my meeting with Dr Lewis, I was informed that the group had left their elective placement 10 days early. I was not given the opportunity to leave my placement early and I had to work throughout the 4 week placement. The group were given preferential treatment and were not disciplined for failing to complete the elective time stipulated by the College.



161. When I returned to the Cashew Cottage to ask Emon Malik for a refund she told me to “get out” and she told me that I was “not welcome”. I reminded her that I had paid for the accommodation and she replied “Yeh, well you left!’



162. On 22 September 2007, I was signed off by Dr Christine Paris. She stated that I ‘showed much interest’ and ‘had a very good bedside manner’. She also stated that I was ‘a pleasure to have’. (I refer to KCL Elective Period 2007, Elective Attendance Form marked exhibit 83). I had worked with Dr Christine Paris for approximately two days per week. She invited me to her private clinic, which I attended. The staff at the hospital were very friendly and I was invited by one of them to a home barbeque. I had enjoyed working at the hospital but my experience was tainted by the actions of Emon and the other students. The support and kindness from the staff helped to ‘ground’ the experience for me.



163. I had looked forward to my elective placements abroad and my mother had saved over many years to allow me to travel abroad as a special treat. The way the group treated me in St Lucia ruined my elective experience and spoilt my chance of a holiday experience.



164. I arrived back in the UK on 25 September 2007. I had not accessed my e-mail but on 2 October 2007 I had a call from Dr Sue Clarke (white) telling me to attend a meeting with her within the hour. She told me that she had sent me an email. I asked her if we could make the meeting at another time as I had planned to go out but Dr Clarke was insistent. This was during my holiday period.



165. I attended the meeting with my mother and Dr Clarke told me that she had been approached by the students with me in St Lucia accompanied and she wanted to hear what I had to say. My mother asked her if any complaints had been made against me and Dr Clarke informed us that no one had made any complaints against me, but that the students were afraid of being taken to court. Dr Sue Clarke told me that ‘the College would not look favourably upon me taking the students to Court’. She brushed aside my complaints and showed obvious bias in favour of the students that I had complained about. She asked me if I had problems at any of my other placements. My mother assumed that she was referring to Hastings and told her that I was a practicing Christian and would not tell lies about anyone. I told her that I would rather focus on the incidents in St Lucia. Dr Clarke insisted that I should make a formal complaint but stressed that this was so that the College could thoroughly investigate me. She said this may be disruptive for me especially during my final year of studies and it would be a shame. As the students had not made any complaints against me, I regarded this as irrational and unreasonable. I was very distressed and upset by such obvious bias and victimisation.



166. I was very shocked and concerned following my meeting with Dr Sue Clarke. I felt very threatened and intimidated. As I did not want anything to jeopardise my final year examinations and my future career in medicine, I informed Dr Clarke by e-mail that I would follow her advice and not pursue my court claim against the students or make a formal complaint. (I refer to e-mail correspondence dated 02 October 2007 with Dr Sue Clarke, marked exhibit 84). On the same day she responded stating that this ‘has obviously been a very upsetting episode’. The word ‘episode’ is used in medicine to denote emotional and mental instability. Dr Sue Clarke used this word inappropriately in reference to me. By preventing me from pursuing my claim at the County Court and making threats, Dr Sue Clarke was aiding and abetting the students.



167. Following my request for information under the Data Protection Act, I was provided with a letter that I had written to Emon Malik in relation to the incidents in St Lucia. This had been annotated in consultation with Dr Clarke. In the annotated letter, it was implied that I was displaying symptoms associated with ‘paranoia’. For example, Emon Malik falsely alleged that I had attempted to ‘kill a frog’ in the villa. Emon had infact attempted to kill the frog by spraying it with insecticide and I told her not to. The group also stated that I went around the Villa clutching my bag tightly to my chest and that I carried it everywhere, even to the kitchen. This was also untrue. If I had been displaying such symptoms they would have been picked up by the qualified doctors I was working with at the Victoria Hospital. No one else made such complaints. The annotated letter was not signed by any member of the group. (I refer to the my letter dated 27 September 2007, marked exhibit 85 and the annotated letter prepared by the students in St Lucia in consultation with Dr Sue Clarke dated 27 September 2007, marked exhibit 86). This annotated letter was sent to Professor Rees and other members of staff. (I refer to the email correspondence between John Rees, Professor Greenough, Hannah Sewell and Dr Clarke dated 5 October 2007, marked exhibit 87). I believe that Dr Sue Clarke directed the annotation of the letter to cause confusion, make me appear confused, illogical and paranoid. This was the only way she could justify bringing up ‘fitness to practice’ issues with the GMC to exclude me from the medical programme. In attempting to pass off the annotated letter as my work, Dr Clarke and the medical students acted maliciously, fraudulently, misrepresented my work with the intention to deceive.

168. Following my meeting with Dr Clarke, I telephoned Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan (Siva) as she had invited me to join the group in St Lucia. I wanted to understand why they had behaved in the way they had. She told me that she was ‘really sorry’ but that Dr Clarke had told them that they were ‘not allowed’ to speak to me. I asked why and asked “what on earth’s going on?”. She apologised again and said she had to go and hung up.



169. Due to the hostility from senior members of staff at King’s College, I applied out of South Thames for my F1 post, choosing ‘North-Central’ (London) as my first choice. Although I had asked Dr Caroline Bradbeer (my clinical advisor) to act as one of my referees, I decided not to use her due to her attitude towards my dysmenorrhoea, her intrusions into the personal life of myself and my mother, her hostility towards me and bias in relation to my complaints. I later discovered that her division within the London Deanery is North Central. I was rejected by North Central Foundation School. I was informed by the Cardiff Foundation programme that my university and first choice foundation school were responsible for marking my foundation application. Due to my failure to qualify and take up my F1 post, I was forced to reapply. I discovered that my mark for the F1 application for the 2007/2008 rounds was changed from 68 to 55. I asked for an explanation but have not been provided with one.



170. Following my request for disclosure under the Data Protection Act, I discovered that on 5 October 2007, Dr Clarke tried to undermine my complaints by falsely alleging that I had "mental health problems". In an undated email from Dr Sue Clarke to Dr Garlick, she stated: ‘…It would appear likely therefore that Virginia has some mental health problems. I spoke yesterday with Edgard and he felt that a formal investigation may be the trigger needed to ensure that Virginia seeks help…this situation needs to be dealt with urgently as year 5 formally starts on Monday.’ Dr Edgard Sanchez is a Consultant Psychiatrist with the School Counselling Service (Student Services). I did not give Dr Clarke consent to discuss me with Dr Edgard, and there was no justifiable reason for Dr Clarke to mention me to Dr Edgard. (I refer to the email dated 5 October 2007 from Dr Clarke to Professor Rees and Professor Anne Greenough and the email from John Rees to Hannah Sewell with attachments (not provided) , marked exhibit 87 ). I have never suffered from mental health problems. The other students who had been with me in St Lucia were not accused of being paranoid or asked to see a psychiatrist following the complaints made against them.



171. The actions of Dr Sue Clarke, Professor Rees and the management team in suppressing my complaints are discriminatory treatment and suppression of my right to free speech. I believe that would mean a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 14 of the same act.



172. At some stage during my course, a decision was made to monitor me as evidenced by the telephone note provided to me following my Data Protection Act request. I the ‘phonecall with Hannah Sewell’ it was stated that I was watched ‘during other placements’ and that even though they were ‘trouble free placements’ with no ‘fresh problems’ that I ‘May 2nd attempt anyway’. (I refer to the telephone note headed ‘Phonecall with Hannah Sewell’, marked exhibit 88).

173. Having to defend myself against these false accusations has been extremely distressing not only for me but also for my family. During my work at the Victoria Hospital in St Lucia, experienced and unbiased doctors stated that I was a ‘pleasure to have’. Also the Consultant at the Coronation Hospital in Johannesburg where I had worked immediately before taking up my placement in St Lucia, gave me an ‘excellent’ grade and said I was ‘an excellent advertisement for (my) institution’. My distress has been aggravated by the fact that these false, malicious accusations are being circulated by KCL management which falsely implies credibility. Knowing that KCL management are spreading these false and defamatory statements and permitting them to be circulated by staff and students is deeply hurtful and distressing. It has caused me a great deal of embarrassment amongst my peers and has affected the way that I am perceive. It has also damaged my relationship my fellow students.

174. Dr Sue Clarke orchestrated and fabricated false evidence against me in order to destroy my credibility as a witness. I believe she did this in order to protect the racist students in Hastings and St Lucia because of their connections with senior members of the management team. On 5 October 2007 she stated in an email:

‘ …During year 4, she made allegations against staff at Hastings and also accused an OSCE examiner of staring at her (Caroline Bradbeer has details). It would appear likely therefore that Virginia has some mental health problems. I spoke yesterday with Edgard and he felt that a formal investigation may be the trigger needed to ensure that Virginia seeks help. Interestingly, several times during the meeting with Virginia and her mother, her mother reiterated that ‘Virginia is not paranoid’. I think that this situation needs to be dealt with urgently as Year 5 formally starts on Monday. Thanks for your help Sue’. (I refer to the email correspondence between Professor Rees, Hannah Sewell, Dr Clarke and Professor Greenough dated 5 October 2007, marked exhibit 87 )

a) I never made allegations against any staff at Hastings.

b) I never accused an OSCE examiner of staring at me.

c) I have never suffered from mental health problems

d) Dr Clarke had no right to refer me to a psychiatrist (Edgard).

e) The word ‘paranoid’ was never mentioned by my mother, Sue Clarke or myself during our meeting.

175. Also on 5 October 2007 (16.26pm) , Dr Susan Clarke sent an email to Dr Pamela Garlick asking her to ‘put into writing…all previous episodes…relating to Virginia ie Halls of residence etc’. In response, Dr Garlick falsely stated: ‘Unfortunately, it’s my memory we’re tested because I never wrote this stuff down!....but in her first year here, Virginia was in Great Dover Street Halls and came to see me at some point during the year to complain about the fact that the other people in her ‘flat’ were deliberately stopping her working by having loud conversations outside her door whenever they knew that she was trying to study. They were also stopping conversations whenever Virginia appeared in the communal area because, she said, they were always talking about her behind her back. She stopped talking to them because they were “out to get her” she said. A little while later, she moved out of halls and back home. I think that Virginia complained to Susan Standring (who was her personal tutor) at one point, that I was showing racist behaviour towards her. She went and complained on a regular basis to Susan about a number of things, I believe (Susan may be able to fill in more details, particularly if she logged them somewhere). I understood from Alison (Stenton) that in one of Virginia’s clinical exams she put in a complaint about the fact that other students were trying to put her off by staring at her during the exam and making it difficult for her to concentrate. I think that was logged officially. That’s all I can remember, I’m afraid.’ (I refer to email correspondence between Pamela Garlick, Sue Clarke and Dr Rees dated 5 October 2007, marked exhibit 89).

a) whilst at Great Dover Street Halls, I did not complain to Dr Garlick or anyone else that “people in my ‘flat’” were deliberately stopping me from working by having loud conversations outside my door whenever they knew that I was trying to study.

b) I did not complain to Dr Garlick or anyone else that students were stopping conversations whenever I appeared in the communal area or that they were always talking about me behind my back.

c) I did not complain to Dr Garlick or anyone else that I had stopped talking to ‘them’ because they were “out to get (me)”. I continued to have a good relationship with all the students that I had shared accommodation with and with Richard Pinder who later asked me to be his clinical partner.

d) I moved out of Great Dover Street Apartments (halls of residence) due to my condition of severe dysmenorrhoea.

e) I never complained to Professor Standring that Dr Garlick or any other member of staff or student that she was showing racist behaviour towards me. The only complaints I made to Professor Standring and Dr Garlick was that I felt I should have been put on the MBBS course and about the segregation and failings of the EMDP Course.

f) I never made a complaint to Alison Stenton (Teaching fellow in Medical Education; Academic Registry) that in a clinical exam other students were trying to put me off by staring at me during the exam and making it difficult for me to concentrate.

176. On 5 October 2007, Dr Sue Clarke also sent an email to my Clinical Advisor (Dr Caroline Bradbeer) asking her to ‘put into writing’…’the ‘recent episodes’ that you are aware of concerning Virginia’. Dr Bradbeer responded:

‘According to my records I have seen Virginia every block at least once, but over the time we are concerned about I saw her on April 25th and May 16th…

In April, I wrote:

‘Disturbed during EMTL by someone making noises and staring at her. Handed in a complaint on 3/4/07 after the exam.

Angry and stressed. Problems with other students (Hastings).

House move in abeyance

See 2 weeks to assess registry response.’

My ‘personal folders’ won’t open but I did send an email to the Alison (Stenton) at the registry documenting my concerns on 16/5/07 after our second meeting.

There were 2 main incidents that alerted me about her. One is the complaint she made that she was being discriminated against by the other students on her attachment in Hastings – I recall she cited their not sharing a shower with her, and their leaving washing up in the sink.

The second was this episode in the exam when she described an individual who sat looking at her and shuffling papers and sometimes whispering to a colleague at a desk near her, which put her off the exam so much she asked to be taken to the loo. Once outside she complained about the person to her escort and later to the registry, but nothing was done. She attributed this episode to her failure in the exam.

The reference to the move was that she and her mother were going through a protracted house move and her possessions were in boxes – I assumed this might be a stressor and the cause of what I saw as her apparent over-reaction to things.

I did see her once more before her elective. [I failed to record the date, sorry] when she seemed much calmer.

Of interest, Virginia has always complained of severe, incapacitating dysmenorrhoea. I arranged for her to see Cindy Sethi as she felt she’d had no joy from Diana H-F. She is very keen to pursue a career in O&G and I think that is not unconnected.’

I hope this helps – I haven’t seen her yet.” (I refer to the undated email from Dr Bradbeer to Dr Sue Clarke forwarded to Hannah Sewell on 21 August 2008 09:17, marked exhibit 90 )

a) Dr Bradbeer has manipulated two isolated events over a two year period to conclude that I showed ‘cause for concern’. Dr Bradbeer falsely portrays me as a person with ‘anger’ problems. Prior to my complaints, no one had ever accused me of having ‘anger’ problems, Infact many of my friends and students have told me that they are amazed how I have managed to remain calm under conditions of extreme provocation.

b) I did make a complaint about a man disturbing me during an EMTL exam, as can be seen from the mitigating circumstances form (I refer to the mitigating circumstances form dated 5 April 2007, marked exhibit 91). The complaint was reasonable as the man appeared to be an invigilator wo was fidgeting. He appeared to be in his 50’s and was not completing the exam.

c) Dr Bradbeer stated in her email that it was ‘of interest’ that I suffered from period pains. She thought that this was why I wished to ‘pursue a career in O&G’. She did not ever discuss my motives with me and her conclusion was incorrect.

d) Dr Bradbeer goes on to state that she arranged for me to see Cindy Sethi (her colleague in the HIV/STD men’s clinic) as Diana H-F (O&G specialist) had failed to help. During a meeting with Dr Bradbeer, she asked me whether I had seen Dr Hamilton Fairley and I told her that I had and she had not been able to help. I was surprised at her intrusion in my healthcare and of her apparent knowledge of my medical history. She told me that she would have referred me to herself, but perhaps that would not have been appropriate. She offered to refer me to her colleague instead. I told her that I did not want her to do so. Against my wishes and without my knowledge and consent, Dr Bradbeer made the appointment with Dr Sethi. I believe she did this to gain access to my medical records from the hospital system and my G.P. I recalled receiving an e-mail but assumed it was a junk circular as I had no reason to be referred to a STD/HIV clinic. I was not aware that she had done this until Autumn 2008, when I received disclosure under the Data Protection Act. As a medical student, I am entitled to the same degree of confidentiality as the general public and this invasion of my privacy has caused me a great deal of distress. I have also found the referral to the STD/HIV clinic degrading and humiliating. It was an inappropriate referral and I have never suffered from any STD’s nor HIV.

e) The above actions by Dr Sue Clarke and Dr Bradbeer are in breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. Their actions also amount to victimisation, bullying and harassment. Their utterances and correspondence has been defamatory and resulted in damage to my reputation and job prospects. The unwarranted intrusion into my private life subjecting me to this humiliating and degrading treatment is in breach of my human rights.

177. In a second undated email from Dr Bradbeer to Dr Clarke she stated:

“I saw Virginia just now and discussed things with her. I told her the problems in St Lucia reminded me of the ones she’d had in Hastings and that I had been worried about her then, and later in relation to the person in the exam. I did suggest this smacked of paranoia and she was clearly very angry at the suggestion. I couldn’t get her to see her to see how it might look and that the things she cited could be innocent. She said she wanted to put it all behind her and concentrate on her work.

I suggested that, whatever the truth of the matter she might benefit from counselling to look at how she could manage her anger and maybe deal with any similar situation that might arise in future. We discussed Hastings in vague terms and she said that was quite unrelated, but wondered if she should bring it up as I seemed to be linking it and implied it had been more serious than I knew. She said she had no evidence for what happened but that it was nothing to do with her-and she certainly wasn’t paranoid and didn’t need counselling. I suggested she think about mentioning the Hastings episode when she meets with the Dean next week and asked her to feed back to me how it went.

Her accounts are to me so clearly those of normal responses by the people she went to St Lucia with that I worry about her ability to carry on interpersonal relations. I’m sure she would continue to refuse but feel she would benefit from some sort of interpersonal skills training

I rather fear that she no longer sees me as on her side; I have asked to see her again soon, but she said she’d e-mail me-she may not.”

Working with Dr Sue Clarke, Dr Bradbeer was acting to discredit me by making me appear ‘paranoid’. (I refer to the email with blanked out recipients forwarded to Hannah Sewell on 21 August 2008, 09:19, marked exhibit 92 )

178. On 5 October 2007, Professor Rees sent an email to Hannah Sewell with attachments asking her to meet with me. He instructed that I should be asked to ‘withdraw’ the accusations ‘in writing’ or it should be referred to the College complaints system as harassment. He stated:

‘My view was that we ask her to withdraw in writing and suggest that this looks as if there might be a problem and suggest she sees a psychiatrist. If she agrees to neither we go to a formal complaint if she agrees to the withdrawal but not the psychiatrist we say, ok if she doesn’t agree to that and there really is no problem then we don’t expect to have any further issues, if there were we would need to readdress this…’ (I refer to e-mail from John Rees dated 5 October 2007 (the email was disclosed under the DPA but the attachments were not disclosed) marked exhibit 87)

179. On my first day of term, I approached Amy Feltstead and some other students who I had been friendly with. When I said ‘hello’ to Amy, she responded angrily: ‘I’ve spoken to Jaskerien and will be meeting her tonight to discuss what happened in St Lucia’. The others in the group shunned me and I told her I was rushing off to get my bus. I left feeling that I was being intentionally isolated by the false rumours being spread about me and management were protecting the culprits.

180. On 8 October 2007 I received an e-mail from Hannah Sewell asking me to attend a meeting with Professor Rees, Dr Sue Clarke, and Hannah Sewell on 9 October 2007. (I refer to e-mail dated 8 October 2007 from Hannah Sewell to me, marked exhibit 93). I thought that Professor Rees wanted to discuss the letter of complaint that he should have received from the Dean of Victoria Hospital, St Lucia. As my mother was unable to attend, the meeting was rescheduled to 19 October 2007 to allow her to accompany me.

181. Prior to my meeting with the Dean and on the first day of term, Richard Pinder came up to me during a lunch break. He tried to hug me but I pushed his arm down and moved away. I told him that I wanted to speak to him and he agreed and offered to meet me after lectures that day. We went to a cafe in the Hay's Galleria after lectures at the end of the day. Richard was very excited the whole time. He was jigging in his seat, crossing and uncrossing his legs and putting his hand over his mouth as if to stop him self from laughing. I found his behaviour very strange as he was making jest of a very serious situation affecting me. He informed me that he knew about the incidents in St Lucia as he had spoken to the Dean 'just recently'. I told him that I had not yet seen the Dean but that I had seen Dr Sue Clarke who had told me to make a formal complaint. I told him that I was considering submitting a formal complaint of racial discrimination and harassment regarding the students in Hastings and St Lucia. He laughed and told me that if I did they would end my medical career as they would 'determine' that I was 'paranoid'. He sat back in his chair, crossed his arms and laughed. He also told me that if I went ‘up against Mimi (Emon Malik), I was not going to win’. He said that ‘when Emon has her back up against a wall she turns really vicious’. He said that the fact that they had not finished their elective was a serious disciplinary offence so Emon would ‘fight tooth and nail’. I had not complained about their non attendance nor informed Richard about it. At the time I was not aware that the Dean at Victoria Hospital had complained to KCL about Emon Malik and the other students leaving their elective placement a week early on 17 September 2007. Richard continued to laugh. I asked him why he kept being brought up as justification for the ill-treatment I had received, both in Hastings and St Lucia. He said: ‘oh, it’s a mystery to me!’ and laughed. I reminded him that he had told me that he was ‘good friends with Emon’ prior to my elective placements. He said ‘I most certainly did not!’ I told him ‘You most certainly did!’. I informed him that I had asked to be placed away from him as a clinical partner. He said: ‘Yeh, I kind of figured that!’ He then informed me, out of context to our discussion, that he had just split up with his girlfriend Cleo. I expressed my sympathy and tried to return to our discussion, but before I could say anything, he laughed, patted me on the hand and said 'Phew! I thought you were going to tell me you were attacked in South Africa!' He then began to laugh uncontrollably and I pulled my hand away from him. He continued to laugh so loudly that customers and staff in the restaurant turned around to look at him. I gasped in shock and told him ‘No’. I went cold and I was very upset and embarrassed as all the students that returned from the elective in South Africa were still discussing the attack and rape of the Black medical student. I could not believe that he or anyone else would celebrate the prospect that I or anyone else might have been raped. I felt nauseated, outraged and disgusted. He went on to ask me whether I had given back my PEP pack. He could see my distress and continued laughing. I told him that I had not as I had paid £98 for it and may need it for my surgical rotation. He asked me when I was due to meet the Dean and I told him in about a week. I was extremely eager to get away from Richard so I called the waiter to pay my bill. I started to put my money down on the table but he insisted on charging it to his company (‘Bspoken’). After this I refused to meet with Richard and avoided all contact with him.

182. On 11 October 2007, I attended a meeting with Dr Bradbeer as she had to sign my elective attendance forms and my log book. It was compulsory for all students to meet with their clinical advisors at least once every rotation. During the meeting she informed me that Dr Sue Clark had spoken to her about the incidents in St Lucia. She was dismissive of my complaints and said that she felt that I was overreacting and that it ‘all sounds a bit paranoid’ due to my complaints. She informed me that maybe Alexis Johnson put flies into my food because she had ‘poor hygiene’. She told me that I’d ‘obviously been through an awful lot’ and that it might help me to ‘see a councillor’. I told her that it was unnecessary and what I needed was for my complaint to be properly investigated. She then stated that it was all very odd, and that she was ‘concerned’ about me. She told me that during my forthcoming meeting with the Dean, she really felt that it was a good idea for me to mention the incidents that took place with the students in Hastings and also ‘the man disturbing me during my exam’ as it was ‘of great importance’. She appeared very patronising towards me, biased and protective of the students. She implied that she didn’t believe my complaints and felt that my ‘perception was altered’. I felt very frustrated as it appeared that management had decided to orchestrate a ‘cover up’ to protect the students by discrediting me.

183. On 19 October 2007, my mother accompanied me to the meeting with Professor Rees. He was not interested in my complaints against the students in St Lucia. He falsely accused me of sending letters to the Maliks’ neighbours. I had no knowledge of these letters and my mother told him that I had not posted any letters as I had not even been in the UK when the letter of claim was sent. My mother confirmed that she had posted all the letters to Emon Malik’s home address. Professor Rees asked my mother whether she would be ‘willing to apologise to Mrs F. Malik (Examiner at KCL) and my mother told him she would need to ‘think about it’. My mother explained to him that I had been exposed to great danger in St Lucia due to the actions of Emon Malik and the other students. She told him that I had been forced to leave the Villa with a strange man because of the harassment I was subjected to and that Emon Malik had assaulted me by stamping on my toe. She told him that I had a lasting injury as my toe nail had lifted off the nail bed. She said that she would apologise to Mrs Malik if Emon Malik apologised to me. Professor Rees asked me why I didn’t submit a complaint to KCL whilst I was in St Lucia. I informed him that I had complained to the Elective Co-ordinator (Dr Lewis) who had offered to make a complaint to KCL on my behalf. I believe the elective coordination was responsible for all the KCL students and had a duty to report to KCL if any problems arose.

184. Professor Rees lacked jurisdiction in relation to the actions of my mother. He had not legal right to interfere in the activities of my mother. He also acted ultra vires by asking my mother to apologise to Mrs F. Malik and by pressurising me to drop my claim against Emon Malik and the other students. This was an abuse of power by KCL management.

185. Professor Rees appeared unconcerned by what had happened to me in St Lucia. He said the “actions took place outside the UK” and the court would have ‘no jurisdiction’. My mother informed him that the bullying and harassment began at Gatwick Airport and the money for the accommodation was paid to Emon in the UK. I informed him that I hadn’t done anything to cause the group to behave in the way that they did. I told him that they had bullied and harassed me in St Lucia and were persisting now that I was back in the UK. Dr Sue Clarke shook her head in disagreement. My mother informed Professor Rees that we were concerned about the malicious gossip taking place and he responded, “ Well, you can’t stop people talking!”. I was flabbergasted and could not understand why they were protecting students who had committed criminal acts. They were insistent that I did not pursue any claim against the students in St Lucia. I confirmed that I had already written an email to Dr Sue Clarke to that effect. As I was in my sixth year (MBBS5), I knew that I had no choice but to continue to endure the on-going racial harassment and victimisation until I graduated and left the institution.

186. Approximately two weeks after my meeting with the Dean, Richard Pinder sent me an e-mail asking if I was still studying medicine at King's. My first placement had not yet begun and Richard was aware that I was based outside London for most of the year. I got the impression that he had been informed that the purpose of my meeting with the Dean was to expel me from the university. I showed his email to my mother as I was confused by the message. I did not respond as I did not want further contact with him.

187. I paid and attended various revision courses to ensure that I passed my final examinations. In October or November 2007, I submitted my F1 application. I had spent a lot of time preparing the answers as I was keen to obtain a post to start my Foundation programme. I asked Dr Sukhwinder Shergill to provide me with a reference but he claimed that he did not remember me. I approached Dr Bradbeer and she agreed to provide me with a reference. I also asked Dr Simon Anderson and Professor Nigel Leigh and they kindly agreed to help. I decided not to use Dr Bradbeer due to her hostile attitude towards me and subsequent treatment by the College.

188. In October 2007, KCL sent me to work at a hospital in Canterbury. During the first day, the Student Co-ordinator (Rosemary) addressed the group. Whilst looking directly at me she informed the group that ‘bullying would not be tolerated’. She later informed me that she understood that there had been ‘some problems’. She told me that if I needed to speak to her ‘when’ I had problems in the accommodation that I should feel free to speak to her. By the College informing all my new clinical attachments to monitor me, I was prejudiced and my reputation tarnished before I had the chance to even start work. Instead of monitoring me, the College should have given the students harassing me a written warning to ensure the harassment stopped.

189. At Canterbury, I was put in a room next to the entrance door, communal living room, kitchen and toilets. There was an electric plug and mirror on the wall out side my room which the other students used to dry their hair early in the morning. As I had been the first student to arrive in my flat, I had asked to be moved to a quieter room but I was told that all the other rooms had been allocated. I was placed to share accommodation with Wen Yi Ding, Francesca Bowtell, Mary Ghazaway and another student. When Wen arrived she told me ‘…you’re good friends with Siva, aren’t you? You went on electives with Emon Malik and Siva!’ she laughed. On another occasion the students had gathered around the computer in the living room. Francesca informed me that she was ‘chatting’ with Emon Malik on ‘Facebook’. Wen repeated that I had been on elective placements with Emon and laughed. Mary said ‘Emon knows Everyone! Everyone!’ I was on my ‘Medicine’ rotation and I should have been placed with other students on ‘Medicine’ with a similar timetable to allow us to practice for the OSCE examinations. The students I was placed with were all on their G.P rotation which meant that they had a lot more free time, in comparison to me. They often stayed up chatting and watching television until 2 am which was a nuisance to me as I had to be up at 7am to be at the hospital by 8.30am. Due to the discriminatory treatment and negligent incompetence of management in handling my complaint’s, the victimisation and harassment was allowed to continue unabated.

190. During my second rotation of my final year in 2007, and during my placement in General Practice, the student I was placed to work with (Sally Mansour) told the practice doctor (Helen Thomas), that students on the EMDP "didn't get good grades" and had "attended bad schools and stuff'. Sally was aware that I was an EMDP student from my badge and previous conversations. I was forced yet again to defend myself which was embarrassing.

191. On 3 November 2008, I approached Professor Leigh (Consultant Neurologist) for a reference for my F1 post which he kindly provided on 21 January 2008. This was sent to me in October 2009. He had marked me ‘excellent’ in the following areas:

- Can show evidence of having achieved the outcomes for qualification set out in Tomorrow’s Doctors 2003.

- Level of language skills in written and spoken English

- Demonstrates an understanding of the importance of the patient as the central focus of care.

- Demonstrates ability to priorities tasks and information appropriately.

- Demonstrates an understanding of the importance of working effectively with others.

- Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively with both colleagues and patients.

- Demonstrates initiative and the ability to deal effectively with pressure and/or challenge.

- Demonstrates appropriate professional behaviour, i.e, integrity, honesty, confidentiality.

(I refer to ‘The foundation Programme, Structured Reference for Foundation Applicants’ provided by Professor Leigh, dated 21 January 2008, marked exhibit 94 and email correspondence dated 11 November 2007, 11 March 2008 and 2 November 2008, marked exhibit 94a).

192. On 20 February 2008 I secured my F1 post at the Gwent Hospital Trust to start work on 1 August 2008. My F1 placement was split between The Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, and Neville Hall, Abergavenny, both part of the Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust. I looked forward to starting my F1 post. I started driving lessons and past the written test with the intention of buying a car to drive to work. My grandmother who lived in Wales was also delighted and took me to see the hospitals. (I refer to the witness statement of Mrs Anne Giwa-Amu (grandmother), dated 18 October 2009, marked exhibit 95). My uncle was helping me secure accommodation in Cardiff (I refer to the witness statement of Mr John Giwa-Amu dated 20 October 2009, marked exhibit 96)

193. On 28 February 2008 I was sent an email by ‘The UK Foundation Programme Office’ congratulating me on my Foundation Programme allocation. It referred me to the web site to see the specific programme I had been matched to. It stated:

‘…Your allocation to a Foundation Programme placement is not a guarantee of a job. The contract of employment will be issued by the employing healthcare organisation and is subject to your passing final exams and upon completion of your pre-employment checks. Providing you pass finals and your pre-employment checks, you will be able to take up your F1 job at the beginning of August 2008…’

(I refer to the email, subject 2008 Foundation Programme Allocation Results, marked exhibit 97)

194. In early 2008, Richard sent me an e-mail during the Foundation Programme allocations (prior to the allocation results). He stated that he ‘thought [I] should know that [he] had secured a research post with King’s College London at St Thomas’ Hospital and didn’t have to worry about Foundation Programme allocations’. He asked me how my foundation application was going. I was not surprised that he obtained a competitive position at KCL due to his contacts within the university. I did not respond.

195. I was contacted by Donald Masi who asked me how I did for my F1 allocations. I told him I had been matched to Wales. He asked me what my mark was and informed me it was out of 100. When I checked I had scored 68. I was informed by another student that some students had failed to secure a F1 post.

196. On 28 March 2008, Richard sent a circular on behalf of the Conservative Medical Society asking students to get involved with ‘directing the future’ of the NHS. He stated that ‘…the Conservative Medical Society is looking to develop a core group of medical students and junior doctors to inform Conservative health policy, the Shadow Health Team and David Cameron…and facilitate networking of young centre-right doctors…I have been asked to develop this group…’ (I refer to email dated 28 March 2008 from Richard Pinder, marked exhibit 43)

197. For the final rotation before the examinations, I was sent to work at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford. The weekend I travelled to Ashford, I had been unwell (dysmenorrhoea) so my mother drove me to Ashford and helped me unpack. Shortly after I arrived the students in another flat said that they were going to do some OSCE practice. I asked if I could join them and they agreed. I was very weak and still felt unwell but I persisted as I was keen to take every opportunity to practice. I became tearful during the session and apologised to the students. We took a short break and resumed shortly afterwards.

198. Initially, I was placed in a flat on my own. On the second day Emily Pettigrew (aka Jane) moved in. Emily’s clinical partner, Rachel Sussman was placed in another flat. A few days later a student claiming to be from St George’s Medical School moved in and shortly after that she was joined by a colleague. They informed me that they had already completed their written exams and were only required to sit OSCE exams and complete their clinical attachments. I had never been placed in accommodation with students from another University during previous years. This is not normal practice.

199. At the William Harvey Hospital, all other students were placed on a firm of doctors with another student so that they could practice for the practical exam (OSCE) and share tasks. I was the only student placed on my own with a firm of doctors. The students paired up by the College were able to practice together for the OSCE’s but I had to ask other students to spare their time to practice with me which was difficult approaching the final exams.

200. The first weekend, I remained at Ashford with Nana Ansah. She came to visit me at my flat and we planned to study together. We planned to practice for the OSCE examinations when the other students returned. When Bijal Kothari, Jigna Patel, and Rachell Sussman did return, I went to find Nana Ansah in order to practice. Nana apologised telling me that they had decided that students would only practice with people in their own flat. She told me that she intended to practice with them instead. I asked if we could practice at another time and she refused. Nana Ansah never came to visit me after that but Emily (from my flat) and Ming, from another flat were able to practice with Nana Ansah and her flatmates.

201. When the students arrived back, after the first weekend, I realised that I was being isolated. Emily (who shared my flat) and Rachell (her clinical partner) practiced together. On one occasion Emily invited me to practice with them. However, when I knocked on Emily’s door after Rachel arrived, they went silent and did not open the door. After that I was not invited to practice with anyone.

202. Some weeks later, during a private revision course (‘Finalmed’), I found out that Anuvidya Reddy (Anu), a friend of mine, had a birthday party the previous day and that she had not invited me. We had previously gone out socially and I had attended her birthday party in the past. She had also sat at the table I organised for the ‘half way ball’. I asked Anuvidya how her birthday party went and she appeared embarrassed. She went on to tell me that Jigna Patell (a student at my placement in Ashford who was friendly with Jaskiren (from St Lucia)) had informed her that I had been ‘unwell’ for a number of weeks. Anuvidya told me that this was the reason she had not invited me to her birthday party. She went on to say that “(I) wasn’t my normal happy bubbly self ‘cos I wouldn’t go to the graduation ball and stuff”. I told her that I was prevented from obtaining a ticket for the ball and that Emon Malik was one of the organizers. I had sent a cheque to Saud Khawajia but he had refused to cash it. She told me, ‘if you’re having problems its ok, I was having problems last year, and its ok’. She had told me that she had been depressed as a family member had died. She was implying that she had been informed that I was having mental health/emotional problems. I was shocked. She then said ‘How did we meet anyway?’ as though she was surprised that she had associated with me. I reminded her that we did the same special study module together. She replied ‘Oh!’. After this I sent her text messages and tried to call her but she would not communicate with me. When we met at College she appeared very distant. I was very upset and frustrated at the failure of the College to stop the harassment, bullying and defamatory rumors from circulating. At this stage I was unaware that management were aiding and abetting by also circulating defamatory statements.

203. As I had no clinical partner and needed someone to practice with for the OSCE examinations, I approached students I knew in London: Anna Bahk, Aisha Jainah and Athanasia Varagimudou (aka Nancy). In the week beginning 7 April 2008, Nancy insisted that I stayed at her shared house so that we could practice together. On the weekend beginning Friday 18 April 2008, I stayed overnight. On Sunday morning I woke up with an injury to my right toe and bruising down my left leg and arm. I also had lower abdomen pain. As I had paid about £150 for a revision class taking place that day, I was keen not to miss it. I struggled to attend the course but I was in so much pain that I broke down in tears in the toilets. When I got back to Ashford, I attended the A&E department hoping to get the foot x-rayed. The GP in ‘minors’ informed me that I had probably ‘strained the capsule of my joint’ but would not give me an x-ray. Another doctor told me that I should have been x-rayed and the diagnosis sounded like a ‘real fob off’. I was not referred to the Occupational Health Department despite the injury persisting for several weeks. Despite the fact that I was limping, my work load was increased rather than decreased and I was made to redo the competencies of my ECSA, not because I had failed to reach the required standard but because my consultant (Mr Williams, an examiner for King’s College London) said he could not recall me doing them and the other doctors would not sign me off. When one doctor agreed to sign me off, Mr Williams told me that he would not allow it. I was the only student on call from 7.30am -10 pm almost everyday. I was the first to complete my log book but the consultant and doctors would not sign off my ECSA form until the day I left. All the other students were signed off once they had adequately performed the required tasks. Despite the harassment and bullying from students and staff I passed all in-course assessments. (I refer to KCL MBBS Part 5, ECSA & Global Score Mark Sheet for William Harvey Hospital (Kent), marked exhibit 98)

204. During my final rotation in Ashford, after I had injured my foot, I was struggling to walk back to the hospital accommodation. It was raining and I was in a lot of pain. I heard the students shouting my name in jest from their window. I was very upset especially as I knew that management were protecting the students harassing me and aiding and abetting them.

205. On the week beginning 7 April 2008, King’s College London selected a group of 20 students including Emon Malik to attend a practice OSCE session in the Chantler Clinical Skills Centre. This session was not advertised and I was not given the opportunity to attend. The selection for this practice session was biased in favour of students associated with management. (I refer to e-mail dated 5 April 2008, from Dr Richard Philips, marked exhibit 99 ).

206. In April 2008, I was invited to attend my uncle’s Welsh BAFTA Award winning ceremony. A week before the ceremony, I was unsure whether I would have been able to attend due to the pain in my right foot. I forced myself to attend to have a break before my final exams. When I arrived, there were television cameras at the entrance and I felt very embarrassed as I was limping very badly following the injury sustained whilst I slept in Athanasia Vergamidou’s (Nancy) house.

207. During the final year, Emon Malik and Saud Khawajia amongst other students were organising the Graduation Ball and Meno-Year Book. On several occasions, I attempted to obtain tickets for the graduation ball but found that all my attempts were being frustrated. Although I submitted my details for the Meno- year book, I was prevented from obtaining a copy.

208. During the final campus block, other students were making table arrangements for the graduation ball. Richard Pinder approached me along with Alexandra Weaver and Thomas James-Catell (Tom). Richard tried to hug me, but I again extended my arm out and moved away from him. I had made it clear previously that I didn’t want him to touch me but he persisted. He asked how I was and I told him I was ‘fine’ and moved away to talk to Nancy (Athanasia Verigamadou). Alexandra Weaver told me ‘We’re organising our tables for the graduation ball and it would be nice if you would come and sit with us, me and Richard’. I informed her that I had been prevented from obtaining tickets so could not attend. I told her I would speak to her later and moved away from them.

209. After submitting my contribution to the ‘Meno-year book’, Richard posted on my year book message page, ‘Apologies throughout’. I showed it to my mother who told me to try to forgive him as he may be afflicted with the same mental health illness as his father. I told her that as I knew Richard, I thought his message was not genuine. A few weeks later, I was on the stone staircase outside the building, at the entrance to the ‘Chantler Clinical Skills Centre’ speaking to Donald Masi. We were standing close together talking. Richard came from inside the building, running down the stairs and pushed us apart. He turned his head back slightly and mumbled something as he continued down the stairs. Donald and I were caught off balance. There had been plenty of space on the steps for him to have gone around us and there was no one else on the steps at that time. I said to Donald: ‘That was so rude! We could have fallen over! What’s his problem? There’s plenty of room on the other side, there’s no one there. Why didn’t he just go around us?’ Donald responded ‘Yes, that was rather uncalled for.’ After a few weeks, I sent Richard a text message saying that I had seen his message. He responded ‘What message? Are you well?’

210. Dr Anderson and Professor Leigh acted as my F1 application referees ( I refer to Foundation Programme application (FP 2008),dated 8 November 2007, marked exhibit 101) On 12 May 2008, Dr Simon Anderson (Consultant physician/Gastroenterologist) provided me with a reference letter for my F1 post. He stated that he ‘found me to be a very enthusiastic and able student, with a good grasp of medicine and an enquiring mind’. He confirmed that I attended all the teaching sessions and had ‘no periods of absence’ and he was ‘not aware of any health problems’. He recommended me ‘highly’ for the F1 post. I was also marked ‘excellent’ in the reference provided for me by Professor Nigel Leigh for the F1 post. (I refer to the e-mail dated 20 October 2009 from Sue Rothwell (Sectary to Dr Anderson) and letter dated 12 May 2008 from Dr Anderson to the Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust (sent to me via an e-mail attachment) marked exhibit 100). On 3 November 2008, I was forced to approach Dr Anderson again and explain that I had failed to graduate and had to go through the F1 application again. This was a humiliating experience for me. Dr Anderson very kindly agreed to be my referee again. (I refer to the email correspondence with Dr Anderson dated 3 November 2008, marked exhibit 100a)



Final examination appeal and formal complaints

211. Prior to the final examinations in 2008, I had never failed an OSCE examination and I had never repeated any year of the 6 year programme. The students were competitively marked so that a certain percentage were removed from the course each year by statistical alteration of the marks. I obtained merits in almost all my Special Study Modules (SSM’s) and did well in my clinical assessments (these makes up the continuous in-course assessments). A breakdown of my results of the in-course assessments was not provided to me by KCL following my DPA request. I did fail an examination in 2004-2005 due to illness. I passed this examination on the second attempt after my operation. An official examination results sheet has not been provided to me to me by KCL for year 1 and ‘year 4’ of the course. ( I refer to the Guy’s King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine Final MBBS (Extended) examination of the University of London, results sheets provided under the DPA year 2-6, marked exhibit 102).

212. I was sent my examination notification in February 2008 with my candidate number (K00239). This stated the KCL examination policy as follows:

'…You will need to enter this candidate number, rather than your name, on all examination scripts this academic year - this ensures the anonymity of candidates throughout the marking process' (I refer to the ‘My Candidate Number 2007/8’, dated (printed)15 February 2008, marked exhibit 103).

213. During the written MCQ examinations on 22 and 23 May 2008, all candidates were required to submit their name on the answer sheet in breach of the stated anonymity policy. This breach of policy allowed staff to quickly identify my papers and I believe my examination papers were altered to ensure that I failed so that I could not qualify to take up the F1 post I had secured. Further, I believe that this allowed a racial bias to creep into the marking whereby a higher proportion of ethnic minority students failed. The Medical School is meant to adhere to the policy to ensure a system of anonymity but they openly flout their rules.

214. During a previous year I had spoken to Alex Porter at registry and explained that it was impossible that I had failed an exam. He checked and told me that I had got 65%. The pass-mark was 50%. He then said that 65% was my mark before it was statistically altered and that it had been reduced to 47%. The marking system at King’s is not transparent and allows for prejudicial discretion.

215. On 5 May 2008, I was sent my PIN number by the GMC and a password was sent separately for provisional registration. However, I was unable to log in to register as the password would not allow access. I telephoned the GMC help line and I was told to try again after 2 weeks but I still could not register.

216. I was scheduled to attend my OSCE examination on 28 May 2008. On 23 April I sent an email to Alex Porter (registry) requesting that my OSCE examination was moved to the following week due to the severe dysmenorrhoea I suffer from. (I refer to email correspondence with Alex Porter dated 23 April 2008, marked exhibit 104). Alex Porter re-scheduled my OSCE examination for 3 June 2008 but this amendment was never published (I refer to e-mail correspondence sent to Alex porter, dated 18 and 19 May 2008, and Correspondence between Michelle Batten and Alex Porter, dated 23 and 24 April 2008, Provided under DPA request from KCL, Marked exhibit 105) .

217. Prior to the examinations on 22 May 2008, all the students checked their assigned desk number on the board outside the hall. One of the students (Joma Salubi-udu) could not find her assigned desk number and was very distressed. The students entered the hall to find 2 MCQ answer sheets already distributed on the desks. I was allocated the last desk in the corner at the back of the hall (seat 19). There was a pillar on my front left side. The desk in front to my right was unoccupied and no answer sheets were on the desk in preparation for the student. This should have been Joma Salubi-Udu's seat but she was not placed to sit there until the exam on the following day. There were no desks to my immediate right hand side which created a space where the invigilators were standing before and during the examination.

218. On the 22 May 2008 I sat at the seat allocated to me and the invigilators were standing close to my desk. A female invigilator (white) was watching me and holding one answer sheet in her hand. As required, I filled in my name and candidate number, college number and test number on the two Extended matching answer sheets. Once I had done this and just after the exam had begun, the invigilator took the second answer sheet from me and replaced it with the one she had been holding. I was very concerned and the invigilator told me that she had given me the ‘wrong’ paper. None of the other students around me had been given the ‘wrong’ paper. Before I could ask to void it, the invigilator quickly went off with the paper. I continued the exam and was confident that I had performed very well.

219. After the examination on 22 May 2008, I sent an email to Alex Porter asking for an assurance that the blank answer sheet with my name on it would not be processed. Despite my concerns, Alex Porter did not reply to my email. (I refer to the email regarding examination sheet, I sent to Alex Porter dated 22 May 2008, marked 106).

220. On 23 May 2008, I completed Paper 2 of the written examination. I believe that the second part of Paper 2 had the same layout as the ‘wrong’ answer sheet that was taken from me on the first day of the exam. I recall that the answer sheet was numbered to over 100. The ‘right’ one that replaced it had much fewer numbers.

221. On 2 June 2008, Dr Richard Phillips sent a circular email stating:

‘We are aware that a small number of students who were given the wrong EMQ answer sheet at the start of Paper 1…might feel they were significantly disadvantaged, and would wish to submit Mitigating Circumstances to the Exam Board, and thus request entry to a replacement examination…..In the event that the Mitigating Circumstances were accepted, then a replacement Paper 1 would be offered (NOT both papers, just the paper for which the circumstances apply).…Please be aware that if you submit mitigating circumstances, and these are accepted by the Exam Board, then the mark for Paper 1 will normally be set aside…It would in theory be possible that you had in fact done enough to pass the examination at the first attempt…and yet fail the second attempt, which would mean you would FAIL the examination.’ (I refer to email (circular) regarding ‘wrong examination paper’, from Dr Phillips, dated 2 June 2008 marked exhibit 107).

As I felt confident that I had passed my exams, I did not want my results nullified. This caused me a great deal of stress and anxiety. I was especially concerned that I had not been given the opportunity to void the paper and feared it would be fed through the marking machine to fail me.

222. Following my OSCE exam on 3 June 2008, I asked Richard Philips about my position with regards to the written paper. He informed me that if I were to nullify the old paper which was a pass, it would be possible that I would fail the new paper and therefore fail the year. I asked him how many students had been affected and he told me that he ‘could not be certain’.

223. During the re-sitters course, I asked Dr Richard Phillips again how many other students had been given the wrong answer paper and he refused to tell me. I also requested this information under the Data Protection Act but the College refused to provide it.

224. Prior to the OSCE examination, Dr Richard Phillips informed all OSCE students that due to train delays our OSCE examiners had been delayed so the external examiners who were brought in to oversee the exams would be acting as our OSCE examiners. This was in breach of the College regulations for examinations which requires that:

“Oral examinations must be conducted by not less than two examiners acting together” (I refer to the A2 General regulations for examinations (KCL), Clause 10.2, marked exhibit 108)

I attended the OSCE examination on Station 5 on the ground floor

225. The College procedure in relation to the OSCE exam is that the examiners award marks based on the criteria set out on the approved marking sheet. The external examiners appeared unfamiliar with the procedure and often failed to refer to, or complete the marking sheet as I carried out the set procedures. On at least six of the OSCE stations the examiners disrupted me with questions preventing me from fully explaining the patient management plan to gain full marks. This was in breach of the College regulations for examinations which requires that:

“ A viva voce examination must be conducted by two examiners acting together, one of whom must be a Visiting Examiner.” (I refer to the A2 General regulations for examinations, clause 11.3, marked exhibit 108 )

226. As all the students sitting for the morning exam were affected by the breach in the regulations described above, it was the duty of the College to take this into consideration in assessing the OSCE results.

227. Approx. 1/3rd of the total score in the OSCE examination was subjective and some marks were based on the patient’s response for each station. Dr Richard Phillips informed the year that a pass mark is set when all the students have completed the stations, not before. I was not informed what the pass mark for the OSCE exams were despite requesting this information.

228. During my OSCE examination (clinical skills: abdominal Examination: station 20), the examiner either fell asleep or was pretending to sleep. This was witnessed by the patient who told me, 'I know she's sleeping, I just feel really sorry for you'. This meant that she did not properly assess me and I ran out of time as I had to repeat everything to get her attention. The examiner gave me a global rating of 4, and gave me a pass (I refer to (station 20) examined by Dr Marius of the OSCE marking sheets:, provided blanked out under DPA, dated Tuesday 3 June-9.30am session, marked exhibit 109). However, despite being awarded 68% on this station, I was marked as having failed this station. In comparison, on station 25, I scored 66% and I was passed on that station. The marking of my OSCE stations was inconsistent. When I received the blanked out OSCE marking sheet following my DPA request, many of the OSCE stations were marked ‘pass’ overall by the examiners but management had decided to ‘fail’ me on the stations. This was in breach of the College regulations which requires the examiners to decide whether a student has passed or failed an examination.

229. On 5 June 2008 I checked the OSCE exam results and my candidate number was not on the list of candidates required to complete the Extended OSCE examination. I felt happy and assumed that I had passed. I had come out of the OSCE examination feeling confident that I had passed. (I refer to the College list of candidate numbers for students required to enter the part B of the OSCE, marked exhibit 110).

230. On 6 June 2008, Alex Porter sent an email to all students stating:

‘The list of candidates required to enter Part B of the OSCE will be published on the VC and in the notice board in New Hunt’s House at 11 am.

Please note that of your candidate number does not appear on the list this DOSE NOT indicate whether you have successfully completed the year. The information published today relates only to the Part B OSCE.

For canadidates listed on the list, please note that you will be expected to attend a meeting with Dr Phillips in room 4.16 henriette Raphael today at 3 pm. You must make every effort to attend.’ (I refer to the email from Alex Porter dated 6 June 2008, marked exhibit 110).

I was not required to attend or given the opportunity to attend the re-sitters meeting.

231. A few days later, Athanasia Varagimudou (aka Nancy) informed me that she had failed the OSCE exam and was required to attend the Extended OSCE. She told me that during a meeting between the Extended OSCE students and Dr Richard Phillips, he had informed them that some students had completely failed the written exam and were not allowed to sit the Extended OSCE. Hence they had failed MBBS 5. He also instructed them to attend an OSCE practice course being organised in Hastings’s before the repeat OSCE exam. Nancy later informed me that the course was run by Dr Denningson, the Dean at Hastings (the Conquest hospital).

232. On 10 June 2008, I received an email from my clinical advisor, Dr Caroline Bradbeer (Associate Dean/Sub Dean of the London Deanery), saying: 'I am sorry to hear the news about your OSCEs. Do you want to have a chat about it? I could see you tomorrow at 2' ( I refer to the email from Dr Caroline Bradbeer dated 10 June 2008, marked exhibit 111). I was devastated, especially as I had not been given the opportunity to attend the Extended OSCE examination which Nancy had informed me meant that I had failed the year.

233. On 11 June 2008, I sent an email to Dr Richard Phillips asking him to confirm that I had passed the OSCE exam and that I was not required to sit the extended OSCE (I refer to the email correspondence with Dr Phillips (copied to Dr Bradbeer by Dr Phillips), dated 11 June 2008, marked exhibit 112). As he was out of the Country, I sent an email to David Skeates asking for a response due to the anxiety this was causing me (( refer to the email to David Skeates dated 11 June 2008, marked exhibit 112) Dr Phillips responded on 11 June 2008:

‘… I am really sorry you are in such a state about this situation which has arisen because of a mix up of names on the list. I can confirm that the Exam Board did NOT require you to sit the Extended OSCE exam… I did NOT tell the group taking the Extended OSCE that some people had “completely failed the OSCE” and were not being allowed to sit the extended OSCE. There is also no “course” being run.” (I refer to the e-mail correspondence with Dr Richard Philips dated 11 June 2008, marked exhibit 112).

234. As I had been informed by Nancy, Ahmed and Soluchi that the Extended OSCE (revision) course was being held in Hastings. I did not know whether not being invited meant that I had passed or failed my final year. I telephoned Dr Bradbeer for an explanation and she referred me to admin. I spoke to Catherine Smith in admin. who informed me that there were two separate pages of candidate numbers and for some reason my candidate number had ended up on the wrong sheet. She told me that ‘they’ were now trying to do ‘damage limitation’. She did not explain further and said she would get back to me and hang up. She did not get back to me.

235. In his email of 11 June 2008 (exhibit 112 above), Dr Phillips informed me that the Examination Board had already met and come to a decision with regards to my OSCE and written exam, however in the ‘Statement of Decision…dated 8 July 2008, the meeting of the Board of exaiminers took place on 25 June 2008. I asked Paul Fairweather for an explanation on 14 July, but none was given. (I refer to the King’s College London Statement of Decision of School of Medicine Undergraduate Board of Examiners in Respect of Candidates Who Have Failed to Satisfy the Examiners, MBBS Part 5, dated 8 July 2008, marked exhibit 113).

236. On 23 June 2008, Dr Rachel Rouse (Consultant Anaesthsist, Neville Hall Hospital, Abergaveny, Gwent NHS Trust) telephoned me to ask if I was due to start work at Neville Hall. She named one of the consultants at the Gwent Trust and asked if I would be working with him. I did not know as I had not been sent the starter pack but I knew that Neville hall was not my first placement, hence I was confused as to why she was contacting me. I was already in contact with the staff at the Royal Gwent, Newport, as I was required to attend an ALS course there prior to commencing the first part of my F1 attachment in Newport. I asked Dr Rouse when I would receive the starter pack for F1 doctors and information regarding my salary. She told me I would receive it later that week or by the following week at the latest and promised to check up on it and get back to me. I never received a started pack and she did not get back to me. At the time she did not tell me what her position was or how I could contact her.

237. On 25 June 2008, the Board Of Examiners met at 2.00pm

Those present were as follows:

Chair: Dr C. Twort

Deputy Chair: Dr R. Phillips

Members: Dr S. Clarke

Dr C. Kosky

Dr G. Morrison

Dr T. Vice

Dr E. Gill

Dr G. Clayden

Visiting Examiners: Dr D. Evans

Dr C. Harrison

Dr R. McAllister

In Attendance: Mr J. Hollands - OSCE IT & Date Administrator

Ms H. Sewell- Assistant Registrar

Mr A. Porter - Registry Officer, Guy’s Examination Office

Ms L Jones - Examination and Assessments Administrator

Prof. S. Peterson - GMC rep

Prof. T. Wheatman – GMC rep

There was "conflict of interest" and lack of independence regarding the board assessing my examinations. Their priority appeared to be to qualify the students associated with management that I had complained about whilst failing me. The influence of Dr Sue Clarke and Dr Richard Phillips on the board was detrimental to me as they had already discriminated against me. Also Ms Hannah Sewell and Mr Paul Fairweather who where in attendance, had previously been involved to decisions that were detrimental to me ( I refer to the ‘Confidential , School of Medicine at Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals: MBBS Part 5 Board of Examiners, minutes of the meeting held at 2.00pm on Wednesday 25 June 2008 in Room 2.14, Henriette Raphael Building, Guy’s campus’, Marked exhibit 114)

238. Following the meeting of the Board of Examiners on 25 June 2008, I was sent a notice stating:

“The decision of the Undergraduate School Board of examiners is that you fail the MB BS Part 5 examination. The Board noted that this was your first attempt at this examination, and has used its discretion to permit you a second attempt at this examination.

In accordance with the MBBS Programme Regulations, you are not permitted to qualify MBBS until you have passed MBBS part 5 and at least 10 special modules. You are required to repeat the year 5 programme in full, including MBBS part 5 and its core course together with two Special Study modules, one to be taken in each of rotations 1 and 2.

You will not be credited with any part of MBBS Part 5 that you have already passed and you must not repeat any Special Study Module which you have already taken. You will not be required to repeat the poster element of the Elective SSM, and your mark for the Elective poster SSM from the 2007/8 session will be carried forward, but please note that this will not count as one of the two SSMs you are required to take during your repeat Year 5.

As the MB BS Programme Regulations normally permit a candidate only two attempts at any examination, should you fail the Part 5 examination at the next attempt you would not normally be permitted any further attempts at this examination and would be required to withdraw from the programme…You are reminded of your right to request a reconsideration of this decision in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the ‘General Regulations for examination’”.

(I refer to the statement of Decision of School of Medicine Undergraduate Board of Examiners in Respect of candidates who have failed to satisfy the Examiners, marked exhibit 113).

239. On 26 June 2008 I was notified that I had failed both the written and

OSCE examinations. I was devastated. My results were as follows:

In-course assessment P (pass)

Written examination Fail

OSCE Fail

Part 5 result Refer

(I refer to ‘MBBS Part 5 Results June 2008, results for 0205485’, marked exhibit 115) This information was provided with my student number, not my candidate number.

240. On 26 June 2008, a notice was placed on the virtual campus asking all failed students to contact our foundation schools and confirming that only one second attempt at the final examination would be allowed. It advised that from 4-8 August we would be given ‘detailed feedback’ on our performance in the OSCE exams. (I refer to Information for Unsuccessful Candidates Summer 08, marked exhibit 116 )

241. On the 26 June 2008, I wrote and submitted my letter of appeal to Dr Richard Phillips and Dr Caroline Bradbeer (copied to the Dean of King’s College, Dean of Undergraduate Education, Equality and Human rights Commission, OIA, and Equal Justice Solicitors) as I was required to appeal in writing. (I refer to my e-mail and attached letter to Dr R. Phillips, dated 26 June 2008, and Dr Phillips reply dated 27 June 2008, marked exhibit 117). I named Emon Malik, Richard Pinder, Steven Dixon, Simon Hill and Emily Bowen in my letter of complaint as students that I expected to be investigated prior to their graduation. I believed that I had been set up by management to fail the final examination to prevent me from qualifying and taking up my F1 post. I believed this was an act of victimisation due to my complaints about the EMDP programme and against the students associated with management. I had been unfairly examined as there were breaches in the College regulations on examinations, I had not been permitted my right to unanimity in the exam, I was the only student given the ‘wrong’ MCQ answer paper, I was not given the opportunity to re-sit both MCQ papers 1 & 2 (following the examination irregularities I complained about and the similarities in the two papers provided to me) and I was not given the opportunity of attending the extended (part B) OSCE course or the extended (repeat) OSCE exam. I believe that I had been singled out by management and treated in such a grossly unfair manner and that the intention of management would be to fail me at any second attempt (resit year) to ensure that I could not qualify as a doctor.

242. As I had not been permitted to void the MCQ answer sheet, I also considered that this might have been fed through the marking machine affecting my mark. I requested this blank answer sheet under my request for information under the DPA but the College refused to provide it claiming it had been destroyed, (I refer to letter dated 2 September 2008 and Subject access Request /DPA list sent via e-mail to me from James Allison, marked exhibit 118).

243. According to KCL 411 students were in the MBBS final year (MBBS5 2007-2008) and took the end of year assessments, of which 403 passed. 8 students finished the final year with a final mark set/capped at 49. The College policy is that:

‘The OSCE mark of any candidate who does not pass the required percentage of stations will be capped at 49’.

‘Candidates who fail to achieve the minimum competence mark in either element of the end of year examinations will be deemed to have failed MBBS Part 5. The total final mark of such candidates will be capped at 49’.

The Board of Examiners have discretion to alter the marks of candidates up and down. Competitive marking and statistical alteration to examination marks is used to fail students that attained the pass mark. The system lacks transparency and is unfair.

It is of note that during the examination period a sheet informed candidates about the examinations stating that 413 students were sitting the MBBS5 examination not 411.

244. The final marking sheet states that 8 students failed and were not graduated. However, the list provided by KCL indicates that initially 21 students (one student corresponds to each candidate number) performed badly on either the OSCE, written exam or both (Obtaining a ‘borderline fail/fail’ on at least one component of the examination). These students were required to attend the part B OSCE as a result. Nancy and other students who were required to attend the part B OSCE had informed me that in fact 40 students in total had failed the exam but due to the size of our cohort some students were allowed to pass at the College’s discretion as there would be insufficient space in the following MBBS5 cohort. Only 21 students were required to attend extended OSCE examination. (I refer to the candidates required to enter Part B of the OSCE, posted on the KCL website on 6 June 2008, marked exhibit 110)

245. The conduct of the examination was also indirectly racially discriminatory. Out of 8 black students that started the 6 year EMDP programme in 2002, only myself and Ahmed Dire made it to the final year in 2008. Both of us were failed in the final examination. Neither of us had repeated any year of our programme. Both of us had made informal complaints about the EMDP programme and about teaching staff.

246. Out of the 403 students to graduate in 2008, only 13 were Black (including mixed race).



247. On 26 June 2008, I had a call from Ahmed Dirie. He told me that he had failed the finals and that he had been to meet Dr Garlick who had informed him that I had also failed. She had asked him if I was around and whether I was coming to see her. I told him that I was not going to see her as I felt I had been victimised because of my complaints. I told him I intended to appeal and get my paper re-marked as I was sure I had passed. He said he too had a problem with his GP Tutor and had made a complaint. He believed he too had been wrongly failed as an act of victimisation. He said it was best not to complain. He warned me that I was treading on powerful toes. He said I was ‘very, very popular’ before I complained about ‘those ones in Hastings’ and that I had ‘become not so popular, infact unpopular, less popular than [him]’. He suggested that ‘maybe [I] should not make any more complaints and keep [my] head down and keep quiet…’

248. Dr Phillips responded to my Letter of Appeal informing me that I would need to submit the appeal on the College EDR2 form. (I refer to the email from Dr Phillips dated 27 June 2008 marked exhibit 117). The College regulations required that this should be ‘in writing, normally on a form’ but did not stipulate that it had to be on a form. (I refer to the EDR2 Form Representations concerning decisions of Boards of Examiners, Regulations, page 2, marked exhibit 119). The EDR2 Regulations concern ‘Representations concerning decisions of Boards of Examiners’ and the form must be in the Student Conduct & Appeal’s Office within 14 days of the publication of the Board’s decision. As the results were published on 26 June 2008, the EDR2 form had to be submitted by the deadline of 10 July 2008. On 27 June 2008, I submitted the EDR2 form of appeal with a 3 page statement attached. This was sent via email (I refer to the e-mail I sent to the College Appeals department with attached EDR2 form and letter of appeal, dated 27 June 2008, marked exhibit 120). On 2 July 2008, Lara Da Fonseca acknowledged receipt of my EDR2 form and pointed out that I needed to indicate the regulation I was requesting review. I responded on 2 July, informing her that I would submit an extended statement and appeal form by the submission deadline after consulting my Solicitor (I refer to my email dated 2 July 2008 to Lara Da Fonseca, marked exhibit 121.

249. On 7 July 2008 my mother met with my Solicitor as I was in Morocco. After he had inspected the appeal she submitted the amended version of the EDR2 form with a 9 page statement, with evidence. (I refer to the EDR2 with 9 page statement and evidence attached; marked exhibit 122, and my letter dated 8 July 2008 requesting correction of mistake, marked exhibit 123)

250. The basis of my appeal was that the final year examinations were not conducted according to King’s College policy to ensure anonymity and that there was procedural unfairness, examination irregularities and examiners' bias. I complained that I had been the victim of racial discrimination and/or victimisation. I requested that the Board of Examiners reviewed its decision on the basis that:

a) There was evidence that my examination was adversely affected by factors which I was unable to divulge before the Board of Examiners reached its decision (under clause 14.4 (a)) and

b) There was clear evidence of significant administrative error on the part of the College or that my examination was not conducted in accordance with the instructions or Regulations (clause 14.4 (b)).

(I refer to clause 14.4 of the A2 General regulations for examiners, marked exhibit 108)

251. The EDR2 Regulation require that the Board of Examiners ‘shall meet within 14 days of the deadline for submission by a student of his/her request for a review (ie within 28 days of the publication of the results of the relevant examination). As the deadline for submission was 10 July 2008, the Board should have met by 24 July 2008. At this stage I still expected that a fair investigation would result in a review of the decision of the Examination Board allowing me to take up my F1 post in August 2008.

252. As I made an allegation that my examination was adversely affected by harassment and bullying, the request for a review of the Board’s decision was held in abeyance under reg 14.6 (i) EDR2 to allow the Academic Registrar (Brian Salter) to arrange for the complaint to be investigated under the Formal Complaint mechanism of the College’s Policy on harassment & bullying for students. (I refer to KCL Policy on harassment & bullying for students, marked exhibit 124 and updated version, printed 2009, marked exhibit 125). The Academic Registrar disregarded all time- limits provided in the College regulations and failed to conduct any meaningful investigation. The investigation should have taken place within 28 days of the complaint being submitted on 7 July 2008 (ie by 4 August 2008).

253. On 27 June 2008, I also submitted a B6 Regulations formal complaint (SC1 form). (I refer to the B6 complaint form marked exhibit 125) in relation to:

a) the provision or delivery of the medical programme.

b) Inadequate services or facilities of the School

c) Decisions, actions or perceived lack of action taken by members of College staff.

d) Decisions, actions or perceived lack of action taken by a Central College service, or a member of staff acting on its behalf.

(I refer to B6 Student Complaints Procedure, marked exhibit 126).

Without good cause and acting with biased, the Academic registrar dismissed my complaints under the B6 regulations.

254. I asked for a full review and disclosure of my examination results, and a full investigation into my claims of victimisation, bullying and racial harassment. No investigation took place, the ‘wrong’ examination paper was destroyed and the OSCE examiners’ comments were provided to me blanked out.

255. KCL ‘Statement of Commitment’ states that it is committed to providing its staff and students with a working and learning environment that is free from all forms of harassment, bullying and discrimination’. KCL management has acted in breech of the stated policy by subjecting me to racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation. (I refer to the ‘Policy on harassment & bullying for students’: Statement of commitment, marked exhibit 124).

256. On 27 June 2008, Dr Richard Phillips sent me a breakdown of my results for the OSCE examination (this was the first page of the pack he provided during the ‘resitter’s course’ 6 August 2008, without any highlighting on it). There was no indication of the pass mark for each station. There was no indication of the total pass mark for the OSCE examinations and there was no indication of my global score/ overall mark. Approximately 1/3rd of the overall mark was subjective allowing for discriminatory practices. Following my request for disclosure under the Data protection Act, I was provided with blanked out OSCE sheets. (I refer to the OSCE marking sheets, marked exhibit 109). During my meeting with Dr Phillips on 6 August 2008 he refused to tell me where I had lost marks and would not show me the examiners critique. He said that this would ‘jeopardise the integrity’ of the Examiners. As the written examinations were MCQ the integrity of the examiners was not an issue. What was an issue was the integrity of the marking, and its ‘analysis’ by the college.

257. After I had submitted my letter of appeal, I was advised by Dr Phillips to see Dr Garlick, Dr Sue Clarke or Dr Bradbeer. I did not meet with them due to their previous hostility towards me. A few days later I received a telephone call from Ahmed Dire. He told me that he had been to see Dr Garlick who had warned him that if he appealed the College ‘would not be happy’ about it. He said as a result he decided he didn’t want to appeal. He told me maybe I should reconsider my appeal and I should see Dr Garlick. He then said that he was going to see Dr Bradbeer and maybe we should go together for support. I told him I was fine and would meet her when and if I decided to do so. He warned me that I was stepping on ‘very powerful toes’. He informed me that he had also made a complaint against his GP tutor and as a result things were ‘bad for (him)’. I asked the name of the GP tutor but he said ‘no, no, no, no’. He was too afraid to name the person or go into details of the complaint.

258. On 2 July 2008, Amanda Way forwarded me an email from Ian Creagh, (Head of Administration & College Secretary). (I refer to the email dated 2 July 2008 from Amanda Way, marked exhibit 127). Mr Creagh stated that in relation to the SC1 complaint I submitted that:

‘…Although you have not referred to it I presume you are submitting a complaint under the College’s policy for harassment, bullying and discrimination for students. Under this policy I am required to appoint an Investigator and I have asked the Academic Registrar, Mr Brian Salter to investigate your allegations. The Academic Registrar may contact you to arrange a meeting with you and will report back to me in due course with a recommended outcome.

I am aware that you have submitted an SC1 complaint form to your School, and an EDR2 appeal form to the Registry. These all refer to your allegations of racial harassment. I believe the SC1 complaint should be considered under the Policy for harassment, bullying and discrimination for students rather than the Formal Complaints procedure so I have asked your School to send this to the Academic Registrar who will investigate. You will not therefore hear from your School directly about your complaint. Many aspects of your complaint actually relate to an appeal against a decision of the Board of Examiners. Ultimately your academic results can only be challenged (subject to meeting the relevant regulations) by submitting an EDR2 form which you have done. In accordance with the regulations since your appeal relates to an allegation of harassment your appeal will be held in abeyance until the complaint has been investigated. Your appeal will then be forwarded to the Board of Examiners who will consider the result of your complaint as a statement of fact. This is because the Board is not constituted to investigate complaints.

I will write to you once the Academic Registrar has concluded his investigation.’

259. On 2 July 2008, the examination Office produced my Final MB BS Year 5 examination results 2007-2008.

Final MB BS

Written examinations 44 Fail

OSCE 48 Fail

MB BS Part 5 49 Fail

Centile Rank 98 (candidates position on a scale of 1-100, 1 represents the best performance of the year group)

Special study Modules

Elective SSM 59 Pass

Medicine 71 Pass

GP 70 Pass

Total no. of SSM passes accumulated by the end of year 5 - 11

Minimum no. of SSM unit passes required to qualify MB BS - 9

The pass mark for all examinations is 50. Over the previous 5 years I had never failed an OSCE examination or repeated a year.

The pass mark for all Special Study Modules is 40%, 70% and over is a merit.

(I refer to the Final MB BS Year 5 Results 2007/2008, dated 2 July 2008, marked exhibit 102)

260. On 4 July 2008, I had a meeting with my Solicitor who advised me to exhaust the internal complaints procedure before contemplating court action. He advised me to get student union representation and also to enquire about transferring to another university. Following our meeting, I went to King’s campus with my mother to obtain transfer forms and seek representation. I was due to travel abroad the following day. I was shocked to see that Emon Malik and Johanne Adley had been graduated despite my formal complaints against them. When I took a photograph of them, Johanne Adley shouted at me; ‘There she is, that Cow!’ in front of my mother and approx. 50 students and guests. As I made my way from the office with my mother to obtain transfer forms, Richard Pinder came towards us with his father, brother and grandfather. I tried to avoid him but he stopped me and shouted ‘Oh Virginia! That’s her!’ to his guests. My mother was forced to stop as his family introduced themselves to us. It seemed to me that the students associated with management were being supported by management and felt free to harass me as they would not be disciplined.

261. Following my request for information under the Data Protection Act, I discovered that Emon Malik, Joanne Adley, and 2 other students who had been with me in St Lucia together with Mrs F.Malik and Emon’s fiancé had gone to meet Dr Sue Clarke to complain that I had been ‘circulating’ with my mother and took photographs. They claimed to have been ‘distressed’ as they no longer had the ‘protection’ of the College. Dr Sue Clarke then sent an e-mail to Professor John Rees asking for permission to ‘fill Richard in on the situation and to alert the Hasting’s sub dean…’ as Emon’s F1 post was in Hastings where the resit students were to be placed. At the time, I was not aware that Emon had obtained her F1 post at Hastings, nor was I aware of the College’s decision to place me at Hastings (I refer to e-mail from Dr Sue Clarke dated 21 August 2008 (provided under the DPA), marked exhibit 128). Mrs F.Malik together with Dr Sue Clarke were persisting in their orchestrated attempts to destroy my reputation by branding me as a trouble maker and tarnishing my reputation amongst fellow students and staff.

262. After the gradation ceremony Richard Pinder discovered that I had joined Facebook and attempted to join me as his friend but I declined.

263. On 5 July 2008, I travelled to Morocco with a friend. This had been pre-booked and paid for by my mother. It was planned as a celebration gift in anticipation of my graduation. I was distraught after being failed in my final exam and was concerned about travelling as I had to submit my complaint forms. As I could not let my friend (Dakeipirim Bestman) down, I travelled with her. The holiday was spoilt. On our arrival in Morocco, I was so distressed that my mother had to speak to my friend and explain to her the events leading up to my final exam. Whilst in Morocco, my mother was communicating with me by e-mail and I was providing her with information she required to complete my appeal so that she could submit it on my behalf. On 10 July 2008, I was standing in a check-in queue at the airport in Morocco for our return flight. My friend Prim was standing at my side. I was approached by Johanne Adley and Jaskiren Kaur. I was unaware that the group had travelled to Morocco. They cut in front of us and Jaskiren Kaur lent right into my face and said aggressively, ‘You’re right it is her’ to Johanne Adley. The group’s behaviour was so intimidating and confrontational that my friend turned and hid her face. As they were obstructing us, we had to leave the queue. We returned when they had gone. (I refer to the witness statement of Dakeipirim Bestman dated 17 August 2009 , marked exhibit 129) I was relieved that they were not on the same return flight to the UK. I believe that if the College had disciplined the students and taken my complaint seriously, this on-going harassment would not have occurred.

264. On 7 July 2008 Equal Justice Solicitors wrote to KCL requesting that external investigators should be appointed but this request was ignored. (I refer to the letter dated 7 July 2008 from Equal Justice Solicitors, marked exhibit 130). No investigations or interviews took place. On 14 July 2008, I wrote to Mr Paul Fairweather to protest about the fact that an external investigator had not been appointed and that the students that I complained about had been hurried through the graduation process before the investigation was completed. On 17 July 2008, Paul Fairweather (Assistant Registrar, Kings College) responded to my letter of 14 July 08, 15 July 08 and email of 16 July 08. He stated that:

i) An external investigator had not been appointed as there was no provision in the College Regulations requiring this.

ii) No students were hurried through the graduation process and had their degrees confirmed by the relevant Board of Examiners.

iii) He did not know when the Board of examiners meet and that I should bring this up when my EDR appeal was dealt with by the Board of Examiners”.

iv) Membership of the Appeal Committee would be made of members of examination boards outside my school to ensure independence.

v) The Academic registrar had 28 days to investigate my complaint.

vi) If my appeal is upheld the academic registrar would consider reimbursing my fees.

vii) The College would not reimburse my legal fees.

viii) The decision not to allow me to take up my F1 post would have been by Gwent Hospital Trust.

ix) My academic situation is that I ‘failed the OSCE exam’ [there was no mention of failing the written papers]

x) Even if my appeal was successful I would not be graduated and would be required to attend and pass any 'failed examinations'. (I refer to the letter from Paul Fairweather dated 17 July 2008, marked exhibit 131)

265. The unreasonable delay in concluding the investigation of my claims of harassment and bullying, in turn caused an unreasonable delay to my examination appeal decision. In view, they had decided to ensure that I could not start my Foundation year in 2008/09. I was being delayed to my detriment and obstructed from qualifying as a doctor.

266. By failing to investigate the students, KCL acted in breach of the guidelines set out in the GMC’s regulations regarding the responsibilities of universities to protect patients. (I refer to the GMC regulations ‘Tomorrows Doctors’ 82-85, marked exhibit 132). The students I complained of had behaved in an unprofessional manner, some committed criminal acts and were still being allowed to work with vulnerable members of the public. It was the College’s duty to investigate my complaints but they failed to do so.

267. On 15 July 2008 I telephoned the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport where I was due to start work and spoke to Ms Kerry James. I informed her that I had not passed the final examinations and that I had submitted an appeal so may be late starting work. I also explained that I was to attend the ALS course in October and had not yet received the 'starter pack' as promised. Ms James informed me that they had been told that I was not going to start my post and that it had to be re-advertised. I was shocked and distressed. Ms James also told me that King's College London had not notified the Gwent Hospital Trust that I had submitted an appeal and if they had done so the post would not have been re-advertised. Kerry James informed me that on 30 June 2008 ‘the London Deanery at King's contacted Dr Rachel Rouse (Gwent Hospital Trust) to inform her that I would not be taking up my post’. Dr Rachel Rouse then contacted the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport to notify them that I would not be taking up the post. In addition, no-one contacted me or consulted with me in this regard. The post should have been kept open pending my appeal and possible re-sit in November. Ms James informed me that other students/doctors had already submitted applications for my post. She told me that as I had made her aware of the appeal that she would withdraw the advert and hold my post pending the results of the appeal. At that point, she would have stopped the recruitment process.

268. On 15 July 2008, I wrote to David Burt (KCL Deputy Registrar) to protest that KCL had instructed the Gwent Hospital Trust to advertise my F1 post. (I refer to the e-mail and attached letter to Mr Burt dated 15 July 2008, marked exhibit 133)

269. On 15 July 2008 I received an email from Joanne Davies (Wales Foundation Programme), asking me to telephone her urgently as she had not been able to contact me on the telephone number I had provided. (I refer to the email from Joanne Davies, dated 15 July 2008, marked exhibit 134). When I called her, she appeared hostile. She told me that I should not have contacted the Gwent Hospital Trust directly and that I should not contact them in future. She informed me that the advertisement of the F1 post would be withdrawn pending the results of my appeal. She informed me that this was legally required. She told me that if the appeal was successful I would be able to take up my post at Gwent Hospital Trust. She also informed me that if the appeal took a long time and exceeded the August start date that I would still be given a F1 post but not necessarily for the same specialities if they were no longer available.

270. During the Summer of 2008, after submitting my complaints, my e-mails prior to November 2007 were wiped from the College system. (I refer to the emails dated 4 and 5 August 2008 and virtual inbox printed 29 June 2008, marked exhibit 135). The e-mail system was then changed from the old ‘imp Webmail’ to another e–mail system, the ‘Outlook Web Access(OWA)’. E-mails could still be accessed and sent from the old system and but the reply would be sent to the new e-mail system. Once the change over began more recent e-mails also began to disappear sporadically and so I asked for these e-mails to be restored on a few occasions. The College failed to do so (I refer to e-mail dated 15 October 2008 to ISS customer services, marked exhibit 136).

271. On 18 July 2008, I was informed by Steve Hawdon (KCL student Funding Office) that as a re-sit student I would only be eligible for a ‘reduced rate Student Loan for Maintenance’ for that year only. (I refer to the email from Steven Hawdon, dated 18 July 2008, marked exhibit 137). This put an additional financial pressure on me forcing me to look for a part-time job in London to allow me to complete the course. When I requested that Dr Phillips placed me in central London to allow me to work part-time, he denied my request. (I refer to the email dated August 2008 from Dr Phillips, marked exhibit 138).

272. On 18 July 2008, I submitted my request for information under the Data Protection Act. I requested my examination papers and examiners notes of the OSCE stations. (I refer to the Subject Access Request Form (Examination Scripts) marked exhibit 139). I also requested a list of documents, including records made by the psychologist, Sheila Macrae and by my clinical advisor, Dr Bradbeer. By letter dated 2 September 2008, I received an incomplete reply to the Data Protection Act subject access requests (I refer to the letter dated 2 September 2008, from James Allison (Legal compliance Officer) marked exhibit 118). Also:

a) KCL provided copies of the MCQ examination papers but these looked as if they had been filled in ink. I had completed mine in pencil.

b) The additional ‘wrong’ MCQ paper was not provided. KCL claimed that this was destroyed.

c) I was not provided with the examination question paper so it was impossible for me to check whether my answers had been altered.

d) The OSCE hand written marking sheets had been blanked out.

e) The hand written notes made by Dr Bradbeer and recorded in her black book during our meetings was not provided. My e-mail correspondence with Dr Bradbeer was not provided, nor my student file.

f) Some of the emails provided were partly blanked. Most of my e-mails were not provided, and I could not access them all myself as they had ‘been deleted accidentally’ by King’s.

273. On 22 July 2008, I wrote to The Dean of Bart’s and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Royal Free & University College Medical School and St George’s Medical School in order to obtain a transfer. I received responses in mid August. I was informed that they were unable to accept transfers into the final year of medicine and in any event would not consider me as a ‘failed’ student from King’s. (I refer to my letters to St George’s, Barts and Royal Free & University College Medical Schools, dated 22 July 2008 and the response from St George’s and Barts, marked exhibit 140). I also contacted the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland by telephone but they informed me that they do not accept any transfer students. I enquired about transfers to American Medical School, but they required a first degree. I was left with no choice but to return to King’s in order to try to obtain my degree.

274. On 22 July 2008, I was sent an e-mail by Dr Phillips instructing me to attend a week of 'sessions' with other re-sit students (I refer to the e-mail from Dr Richard Phillips, dated 22 July 2008, marked exhibit 141). The purpose of the 'resitter's course' was to go over the exams and prepare a plan for the coming academic year. In the week commencing 4 August 2008, I began the ‘re-sitters course’. We did not go over the written examination and there was no guidance or feed back in this regard. On 6 August 2008, Dr Phillips provided me with a breakdown of my results in relation to the OSCE examination. Out of 22 active stations 4 of the OSCE stations were classed as borderline and 6 as definite fails. In total 10 stations were classified as fail. I explained to Dr Phillips what I had done on the stations that he claimed I had failed and asked how I had lost marks. There was no reason why I should have failed the stations. Dr Phillips could not provide an explanation even though he had the OSCE marking sheets in front of him. He would not show me the marking sheets or tell me what the examiners’ comments were as he said it would compromise the integrity of the examiners. A breakdown of my OSCE marks provide to me by Dr Phillips appeared as if my marks had been altered as one mark had been written in by hand and the document was made or updated on 5 August 2008. (I refer to the ‘Individual Student results’ sheet, and document marked ‘RJWP Feedback JIBOWU-A, dated 5 August 2008’, provided by Dr Phillips during the meeting on 6 August 2008, marked exhibit 142). Following the DPA request some of the OSCE stations classified as ‘fail’ by KCL had been awarded an overall pass by the examiners. On the OSCE marking sheets provided to me under DPA had the instructions, guidance, mark scheme and examiner’s comments blanked out ( I refer to OSCE mark sheets 1-26 (excludes stations 3, 9, 16 and 22-designated rest stations) marked exhibit 109).

275. During the re-sitter course, I was subjected to further psychological tests and compelled to attend a group counselling session:

I) On 4 August 2008 I was required to complete an abstract puzzle in a group with Iris Popa/s and Mayank Patel. Dr Phillips acted as an observer with Ruth Sugden and Diana Bass. The group took a long time to complete that puzzle as we had not been told that there where pieces that only fitted in the wrong way around (rough and uncoated side facing up). The group was asked about the process by which we had put the puzzle together and how we had contributed to the group individually. We were asked if anyone thought the puzzle was wrong and that was why people were having difficulty solving it. The implications of this were that they were unable to accept fault. It was also suggested that the reason we had failed our exams was because we had been distracted by the wrong answers in the written examinations. The puzzle was used to try to illustrate and reinforce this explanation.

II) On Tuesday 5 August 2008, I was subjected to a group counselling session which was observed and conducted by Diana Bass and Natalie Chambers. I would not participate and got so bored that I fell asleep. Athanasia Vargiamidou (Nancy) did most of the talking. She complained that she was clinically depressed and suicidal. After the session Iris Popa/s showed concern that I had not participated. Dr Phillips informed me that I was required to work with Nancy on my two hospital placements in the next academic year.

III) On 10 August 2008, I sent a letter of complaint to Dr Phillips, protesting about the on-going psychological tests being conducted on me. These tests were conducted on 100% of the Black EMDP students to be entered for the final examination (Myself and Ahmed Dire). (I refer to the letter dated 10 August 2008, from Virginia Jibowu to Dr Phillips , marked exhibit 143, and e-mail Response of Dr Richard Phillips, dated 12 August 2008, marked exhibit 144)

276. On 4 August 2008, I asked Dr Phillips whether I could be entered for the November re-sit exams. He informed me that the November re-sit exams were discontinued in 2006 so the only opportunity left to re-sit the exams would be in May 2009. I do not believe this to be true. Harminder Braich in the GMC informed me on 20 August 2008 that students had done re-sit exams in December 2007 and had been able to take up their F1 posts in February 2008. (I refer to the email correspondence between Virginia Jibowu and Dr Richard Phillips dated 11 August 2008, marked exhibit 145)

277. On 4 August 2008, Dr Phillips informed me that as I had failed to register with the General Medical Council (GMC) on time, I could not take up the F1 post until August 2009 anyway. I do not believe this to be true. Harminder Braich informed me that this was also incorrect as there were no time limits on registration with the GMC. He said that foreign doctors joined at any time during the year so time limits would not be practical. The reason that I had failed to register with the GMC was because I had been unable to access the payment sections as the passwords issued to me were not accepted by the website. I did not inform any staff or students in KCL about my difficulties and I did not realise that Hannah Sewell and Dr Phillips had a close working relationship with the GMC. I was surprised that Dr Phillips was aware of my difficulties registering with the GMC. I assume the GMC must have informed the College of the problems with my password and registration. (I refer to the email dated 11 August 2008, marked exhibit 145).

278. In addition, Dr Phillips told me that even if my appeal was successful, I would be required to re-do the final year in-course assessments and attend clinical attachments (which I had already passed) and sit the examinations in May 2009. (I refer to the email dated 11 Aug. 2008, marked exhibit 145). As I had already passed the in-course assessments, I was entitled to be entered for the resit examinations in November 2008 or May 2009. Dr Phillips was simply seeking to undermine my resolve to continue with my medical career and my complaints. Effectively, he was saying that even if I won my appeal (and grievance) I would still be required to re-sit the whole final year by King’s College. This would prevent me from starting my Foundation year until August 2009, delay my employment and obstruct my career.

279. During a group discussion whilst in the ‘resitter’s course’ Dr Phillips also asked me what Deanery I was going to in 2008/2009, whether they were holding my post until 2009 and whether they knew I was not starting work on 1st August 2008. He seemed to be looking for fault and trying to spread doubt. He offered no support or positive encouragement. His information was false and/or misleading. He was cold and unsympathetic.

280. Dr Phillips informed me that I was to attend my clinical rotation at a hospital in Hastings with all the other resit students. (I refer to the email dated 11 August 2008, marked exhibit 145) I had refused to go to Hastings as I was aware that Emily Bowen had obtained an F1 job there and I expressed real concerns about my safety. (I refer to the email I sent to Dr Richard Phillips, dated 6 August 2008, marked exhibit 146). I knew that if I worked with Emily Bowen the racial harassment would continue and the College would do nothing to protect me. I did not know at the time that Emon Malik was also starting her F1 post in Hastings or that the Dean had been put on ‘alert’ that I was coming there. Reluctantly, Dr Phillips agreed to relocate me. He chose King’s College Hospital, London.

281. During the re-sitters course, Nancy informed me that she would not bother to appeal as she didn’t care anymore. She said it was a waste of time appealing as the College had a reputation for delaying the appeal decision. She told me that the appeal would not be decided until after the re-sit examinations in May 2009. Thomas James-Catell said that the college would take until January before I heard anything so I may as well just re-sit the year.

282. In 2008, the College also introduced a 2 week GP placement for re-sit students. (I refer to the email correspondence from Ruth Sugden, dated 27 August 2008 marked exhibit 147) As the ‘re-siter’s course’ had not provided the evaluation of our examination performance, I was not prepared to sacrifice an additional 2 weeks of my summer holiday to attend the GP placement. I had already passed my GP rotation the previous year and did not accept the actions of the College

283. On 4 August 2008, I started the re-sitter course but the official start was October 2008. The appeal of my examination results had still not been decided. This was in breach of the College regulations as stated above. For the first two weeks, I attended lectures at King’s College. I did not know what was expected of me in relation to the re-sit programme and management were unconcerned that I was losing my F1 post.

284. On 14 August 2008, I received an email from Sioned Edwards (Wales Foundation School) notifying me that even if my appeal was successful, I would still be required to repeat the final year at King's making it impossible for me to take up the post offered. By letter of 26 August 2008, Dr Sally Davies, of Cardiff University (Wales Deanery) wrote to me and effectively repeated what I had been told by Ms Edwards. (I refer to the email, dated 14 August from the Sioned Edwards, and letter of 26 August 2008 from Sally Davies, marked exhibit 148).

285. On 21 August 2008 Dr Sue Clarke forwarded 2 emails from Dr Bradbeer to Hannah Sewell. The original senders and recipients were blanked out but appeared to have been sent following my elective placement in St Lucia. The emails were false and defamatory as previously stated.

286. On 22 August 2008, I received another e-mail from the Wales Foundation programme from Joanne Davies. She attached a letter incorrectly addressed to my home, allegedly posted to me on 21 July 2008. The letter had no house number. Joanne Davies informed me that I probably hadn’t received it because of my change of address. My address was however as provided on the F1 application, and I had provided my contact number to her Colleagues I spoken to at The Royal Gwent ( I refer to Foundation Programme application (FP 2008) printed 8 November 2007, marked exhibit 101). Only the College was aware that I have moved home, several months prior to my application, in 2007 (I refer to the email dated 22 August 2008, marked exhibit, 149, and attached letter dated 21 July 2008 from Joanne Davies, marked exhibit 150 ). In her letter, she informed me that following her correspondence with Hannah Sewell (Assistant Registrar, Kings College London), the Wales Foundation School would not now be able to retain my F1 post pending the appeal. Following my request for information under the DPA to the Wales Foundation School, an email was provided to me allegedly from Joanne Davies to Hannah Sewell dated 21 July 2008 asking for Hannah Sewell to approve the letter before she sent it to me. I do not believe that the letter was complied or sent to me in July 2008 and believe that Hannah Sewell ordered this letter to be back-dated and sent to me after it was compiled in August (I refer to correspondence between Hannah Sewell and Joanne Davies dated 21 July 2008, marked exhibit 151). Up until August 2008, I had been told by Joanne Davies that my post would be retained pending my appeal. On 26 August 2008, Dr Sally Davies (Sub Dean) at Cardiff University sent me a letter, informing me that my School of Medicine had informed them that if my appeal was successful I would still need to repeat my final year in full. She informed me that even though I had a guaranteed post to commence August 2009, I would still need to apply through the UK Foundation Programme Office. (I refer to the letter from Dr Davies dated 26 August 2008, marked exhibit 151a)

287. On 26 August 2008, I was sent a letter by Paul Fairweather dated 22 August 2008 with a 'Report of Formal Complaint Submitted by Ms Virginia Jibowu (0205485)' dated 30 July 2008. (I refer to the Letter: from Paul Fairweather to Virginia Jibowu (Cc Equal Justice Solicitors), dated 22 August 2008 and attached report from Brian Salter, dated 30 July 2008, with the postmarked envelope , marked exhibit 152) I was given 10 working days from the date of the letter (22 August 2008) to submit my appeal (By 5 September 2008). As the letter was sent on 26 August, it should have been dated as such and I should have had until 9 September 2008 to submit my appeal. The College regulations stipulated 10 working days. I wrote to Paul Fairweather demanding that I should be allowed my entitlement and he agreed to extend the date of submission to 11 September 2008. (I refer to the email correspondence with Paul Fairweather , marked exhibit 153).

288. In the report of his investigation dated 30 July 2008 (provided on 26 August 2008), Brian Salter (Deputy College Secretary and Academic Registrar) had disregarded the full 9 page complaint I submitted on 7 July 2008 and only focused on the 3 pages submitted 'by email' on 27 June 2008. In the report, Brian Salter stated that:

a) he had decided not to meet with me or any named parties.

b) ‘at an initial glance much of what I had alleged seems to have been greatly exaggerated in significance, or completely invented'

c) the Board will not consider my claims that I was harassed, bullied or victimised as there is no evidence that this was the case or that the complaints were too old.

d) He suggested that I may have an attitudinal problem ‘in that (my) perception of (my) treatment may be distorted’.

e) He recommended that the School satisfied itself as to my ‘fitness to practice’.

289. Also in a letter dated 26 August 2008, Brian Salter apologised for the delay in concluding his investigation. He stated that my EDR2 submission had now been forwarded to the Board for consideration, and he would expect that I would receive the outcome of this procedure in approximately 3 weeks. (I refer to the letter dated 26 August 2008 from Brian Salter, marked exhibit 153a )

290. I found KCL’s persistent underhand and unscrupulous tactics of backdating letters to my detriment unacceptable and frustrating. It caused me to loose faith in the management of King’s. By failing to interview me and the parties complained of Brian Salter acted in breach of the College Policy which states that:

‘The Investigator will conduct his or her investigation by interviewing the complainant and the individual/party named in the complaint.’ (clause 6.4)

291. Brian Salter dismissed my complaints under the B6 regulations as he claimed that 'the B6 regulations clearly state that students cannot complain about harassment under that procedure. Part of my claim was about harassment but my complaint under the B6 regulations related to the actions by staff as detailed above. It was a sham investigation tainted with bias. Brian Salter failed to follow the procedure required for investigations under the B6 procedure as required in cl. 6.1.3. This called for an informal stage to be dealt with at local level, before the Stage 1 investigation by the School. He intervened at Stage 2 to quash the investigation before it started. (I refer to the B6 Student Complaints procedure, marked exhibit 126)

292. By failing to investigate my complaint, KCL acted in breach of the ‘Race Equality Policy & Action Plan, May 2002’, which states that ‘King’s College London is fully committed to the fulfilment of its duties under the Race Relations Amendment Act’ 2000. This includes the requirement to ‘eliminate unlawful discrimination’. The College also failed to use its existing policy on racial harassment and its student and staff complaints and disciplinary procedures to deal with my complaints of racial discrimination and harassment. (I refer to the King’s College London Race Equality Policy & Action Plan May 2002, marked exhibit 154 and the KCL Equalities Impact Assessment Guidance approved 2005, marked exhibit 155).

293. On 25 August 2008 I sent an email to Joanne Davies in relation to KCL’s interference in my F1 post (I refer to email: regarding backdating of letter, from Virginia Jibowu to Joanne Davies, dated 25 August 2008, marked exhibit 156).

294. On 5 September 2008 I submitted my letter of appeal to Professor Whitfield based on para. 7.1 and 7.2 on the Colleges Policy for Harassment, Bullying and Discrimination for students. According to this policy KCL had to respond within 15 working weeks days (I refer to the letter of appeal from Virginia Jibowu to Professor Whitfield, dated 5 September 2008, marked exhibit 158 and the ‘Student Complaint Form 3 stamped received on 8 September 2008, marked exhibit 158)

a) I protested Mr Salter’s conclusion that I may have an ‘attitudinal problem' due to my complaints.

b) I appealed his decision not to investigate my B6 complaint and requested a review.

c) I appealed the decision not to investigate the full complaint submitted

d) I asked for the College to refer the matter to the police due to the offences of inciting racial hatred, harassment and assault.

e) I appealed the decision not to interview me or the students complained about

On 3 November 2008, Professor Whitfield responded stating that the delay was caused as it was a busy time of year. He narrowed down the matters to be put before the Appeal committee to ‘whether the procedural error in not interviewing me constituted a significant procedural error’ (I refer to the letter of appeal from Virginia Jibowu to Professor Whitfield, dated 5 September 2008, marked exhibit 158 and Professor Whitfield’s letter of reply dated 3 November 2008, marked exhibit 158a)

295. On 24 September 2008, Equal Justice Solicitors submitted claim at the Employment Tribunal on my behalf. (I refer to the Employment Tribunal Claim form: submitted by Equal Justice Solicitors, dated 24 September 2008, marked exhibit 159). Due to issues of jurisdiction of the Employment tribunal an agreement was reached to withdraw it and re-submit at the Central London County Court.

296. On 6 October 2008 I submitted my Race Relations Act questionnaire. This was not replied to within the 8 week time limit and was returned incomplete on 22 December 2008. Also, KCL refused to provide information to most of the questions, or provided misleading answers (see RRA questionnaire and responses from KCL, undated, marked exhibit 160).

297. On 8 October 2009, I was in St Thomas’ Hospital with Ahmed Dire. He told me to come with him to see Dr Caroline Bradbeer. I had no reason to go to see her at the time. He was insistent saying that we may as well check to see if she was there. I told him to go alone if he wanted to see her. I stopped to talk to Ronke, Bernadette, and Barbra (EMDP students) and Ahmed also stopped to talk to them. He asked me to hurry up so that we could go and meet Dr Bradbeer. Although I had studied with Ahmed for 6 years, he had not informed me previously that Dr Bradbeer was also his Clinical advisor. I asked him how he knew that she was my Clinical advisor. He told me that on results day he went to speak to Dr Bradbeer and she had informed him that I had also failed and that she was my advisor. I asked Ronke whether she had seen Dr Bradbeer and she said she had not but would not come with us to meet her. As we made our way to Dr Bradbeer’s office, Ahmed insisted we went through the STD clinic. I had always used a direct route down a corridor and proceeded on my usual route and Ahmed followed. On the way, Ahmed received a telephone call from Johanne Adly who was now working as an F1 doctor. I heard him tell her that he was going to see Dr Bradbeer and that I was with him. He asked her where she was working and he informed her that he would be at Hastings for his first rotation with me, Iris and Dan. When the call ended, he told me that Johanne was not his friend and that she had not called for any particular reason. As Dr Bradbeer was not in her office we left. The following week, I sent an e-mail to Dr Bradbeer to arrange a meeting but she did not reply. My log book was eventually signed by Dr Caroline Bradbeer on 23 Oct 2008 for campus Block 1 (I refer to the copy of my MBBS Phase 5 2008/09 log book, and page 7 Clinical advisor visit, dated 23 October 2008, marked exhibit 161)

298. On 7 October 2008 (my re-sit year), I was issued with an identity card by King’s College again stating that I was an Extended student. The identity cards were always issued in sequence and this was issue no. 3. Unfortunately I lost this card the following day and had to pay £10 on 8 October 2008 to have another card issued. I was given issue no 5. I asked a member of KCL administration staff (Ranjani Berlkumar ,Asian, female) why I had not been given issue no. 4 as it was only one day in between. She could not explain this and I was never given issue 4.

299. On 9 September 2008 I was offered a guaranteed post in the Wales Foundation School to commence in August 2009. I accepted this offer as I realised that as a re-sit student my application would now be significantly weakened and I risked not getting a job. I would have preferred to apply to a different Foundation School as KCL staff had influenced the Wales Foundation School and I feared victimisation. I was not guaranteed a specific programme or Trust and the offer was now made ‘subject to the approval’ of King’s College Medical School. (I refer to the letter from Sionned Edwards (Cc Beverley Osborne South-Thames Foundation School) dated 9 September 2008, marked exhibit 162 and e-mail from Joanne Davies (Cc Sionned Edwards) dated 22 August 2008, marked exhibit 149).

300. On 3 October 2008, Hannah Sewell informed me that due to my offer of a ‘guaranteed post’ that my F1 application would need to be flagged under ‘special circumstances’ by the College to ensure I was allocated to the Wales Foundation School. This removed my right to unanimity during the F1 application process. (I refer to email from Hannah Sewell dated 3 October 2008, marked exhibit 163). On 17 October 2008, I re-registered for the F1 application programme. On 4 November 2008, I attempted to complete my on-line application but I was notified that I had not registered. I re-registered, however the enrolment box remained unavailable to me on the on-line application. I sent an e-mail to Joanne Davies and copied Sionned Edwards ( I refer to e-mail to Joanne Davies (Cc Sionned Edwards) from Virginia Jibowu, dated 4 November 2008, marked exhibit 164). I contacted Hannah Sewell to ask whether the box was not available as I had accepted the place at the Wales Foundation School. She contacted the Foundation team. As I was on-line, Hannah Sewell informed me that she could see that I was on-line and the enrolment box then became available. This meant that she had control over the on-line application to make changes. Apart from declaring my disability, the application was very similar to my previous application but my new score was significantly lower (54 marks). (I refer to my F1 application, FP 2009 (2008/2009 rounds), marked exhibit 165). Once I submitted my F1 application form I found that my mark for the 2007/2008 rounds had been changed from 68 to 55. This should not have happened. I made a complaint and requested an explanation. None was provided. This put me at a significant disadvantage regarding specific Trust and post allocation. (I refer to my F1 application 2008 (2007/2008) rounds, printed 12 January 2009, marked exhibit 166 )

301. On 15 October 2008, I sent an email to Paul Fairweather asking for information on my examination appeal. I also asked whether I was exempt from the SSM’s in the re-sit year as I had already completed and passed more than required. We were required to pass a minimum of 9 to pass the year and I had passed. He responded on 16 October 2008 informing me that:

• my EDR2 was being held in abeyance until my complaint had been fully resolved.

• My appeal against the outcome of my complaint was being considered and a letter was to be sent to me the following week

• If the EDR2 was successful the re-sit would count as a first attempt

• If the EDR2 was successful this would mean I may not need to attempt the SSM’s. (I refer to my email correspondence with Paul Fairweather dated 15-16 October 2008, marked exhibit 167)

My EDR2 complaint against my examination results was not decided until 25 June 2009.

302. In October 2008, the College introduced a new email system which meant that my emails received between 7 September 2008 and 28 September 2008 were inaccessible. On 15 October 20008, I requested that my old email should be retrieved to allow me to access them but I was told this could not be done. (I refer to the email dated 15 October 2008 to iss-customerservices@kcl, marked exhibit 136 )

303. On 16 October 2008, Dr Philpott-Howard sent and email to the students placed with me at King’s College Hospital. Their names were:

• Deborah Levene

• Finula Farrelly

• Sarah Nerwal

• Lise Paklet

• Merate-Kristos Place

• Mohammad Ahsan Khan

• Bhatti Nabeel

• Sangeeta Rana

• Sangeetha Govinda Rajoo

• Stefan Anderson

304. 17 October 2008 the Student Registration Office notified students that the booking system for the January 2009 graduation ceremony was open. I registered for the F1 process but I was not able to enrol. I assumed that was because the rounds had not started. However, on 3 November 2008, I received an email from UKFPO informing me that I was not enrolled and/or registered via the KCL email address. As there was still no log in option, no site for my enrolment and no link available, I wrote to Joanne Davies on 3 November 2008 (Foundation Programme Manager) asking if this was because I had been given a guaranteed post. The closing date was 7 November 2008 and this was causing me anxiety. (I refer to my letter to Joanne Davies dated 3 November 2008, marked exhibit 136a and email correspondence with Hannah Sewell). I also sent an email to Hannah Sewell on 4 November 2008 and she responded by email informing me that I needed to register.

305. I still hoped that my appeal would be decided on time for me to be allowed to graduate in January 2009. Due to the unacceptable delay in deciding my appeal, I was denied the opportunity of graduating in January 2009 and taking up my post in February 2009.

306. On 20 Oct 2008, I began my Medicine rotation at King’s College Hospital. All the other resit students were in Hastings. At King’s College Hospital (Christine Brown Ward), I met Dr Bryant and three final year KCL medical students. Normally we would have been given an induction before hand and told which team we were on. This was not done and we were not told what would be expected of us. Dr Bryant took us to meet our teams. On the Lonsdale Ward, one of the students with me was introduced to her team of approx. 5 doctors. Another students (Asian) asked me if I knew which ‘team’ of doctors I was with, as she didn’t know who was on her team. I told her that I had not been informed. Dr Bryant took me up to a second team of doctors on the Lonsdale Ward. She approached Dr Anna Gerratt and told her; ‘this is your new student Virginia…so now you have a house officer! Whoops! Shouldn’t have said that!’ Dr Gerratt asked what I would be expected to do and Dr Bryant replied, ‘Oh, everything!’ I got the impression that they were making jest. Dr Bryant informed us that the hospital had only found out the previous Friday that we were to be placed at King’s College Hospital. She took the remaining students to another ward.

307. Dr Gerratt introduced me to Dr Grigorio so just the 3 of us made up our team. I was not told the name of the consultant. This was unusual as there were no junior members of staff and this had not occurred on any of my other clinical rotations. Dr Gerratt told me that they felt it would waste too much time if they taught me, and requested that I didn’t assist them in any way. They asked me to followed them to observe. On all other clinical placements I had been expected to start work straight away.

308. During the morning on the Lonsdale ward I discovered to my detriment that:

a) there were to be no lectures for year 5 students at King’s College Hospital.

b) Dr Gerratt and Dr Grigorio were both staff grade doctors (not junior F1, F2 or Senior House Officers). This meant that I had no F1 doctor to ‘shadow’ or to sign me off when I completed my tasks.

309. As I followed Dr Garratt and Dr Grigorio, I tried to ask questions about the patients but Dr Gerratt appeared agitated. Dr Garratt and Grigorio led me to the corridor surrounding the main reception area at the Lonsdale Ward. The reception area was fully covered with CCTV. There was a semi-circular wooden reception desk and there were four members of staff behind the reception desk. There was a clock on the wall behind the reception desk which I could see from where I was standing. There were 2 doctors (one female with short blond hair) and a female medical student standing at the front of the reception desk. They were not talking or doing anything. They were looking towards us. I was standing away from the reception desk with my right side to the wall. I was facing Dr Anna Garrett who was directly opposite me. Dr Antigoni Grigorio was standing next to Dr Anna Garrett and was also facing me. There was a mobile computer on a stand between me and the two doctors. The mobile computer was turned away from me so that only Dr Anna Garret and Dr Antigoni Grigorio could see what was on the screen. There was very little space between me and the two doctors, approximately 2 feet, and this was filled by the computer stand. I was facing the main entrance/exit to the Lonsdale Ward. There was an entrance to my right leading onto the area with the patients’ beds. Immediately behind me was a corridor with an entrance to an area with more beds.

310. As I was listening to Dr Grigorio and Dr Garratt discussing a patient’s management, they began to look at the mobile computer screen. The two doctors glanced at each other then looked down at the work top area of the mobile computer stand. Dr Anna Gerratt then looked up at me and glanced behind me before looking at a sheet of paper. I asked Dr Garret a question about the patient care but she ignored me. I suddenly felt something hit into the back of my left leg which caused a lot of pain. My knee bent forwards hitting the stand and I grasped my leg. I looked down to see if my leg was bleeding. It was not. I looked up and saw the back of a man in what appeared to be the porters uniform. Once he had walked some distance away he shouted ‘sorry’ but did not stop to see if I needed assistance. The wheelchair he was pushing had a metal cage attached. I have never seen a cage like it in that position whilst working at any of the hospitals. He appeared Caucasian, of medium build with dark hair coming to a point at the nape of his neck. He was leaning forwards over the wheelchair as he drove the wheelchair away from me and towards the entrance door. Dr Anna Garret glanced up at me without expressing concern. She returned to looking at the computer screen. No one asked me if I needed assistance or express any concern even though they saw what happened and would have heard the porter shout ‘sorry’. I recall glancing at the clock and it was 11.45 am. There was no reason why the porter should have hit me as I was standing next to the wall, so there was plenty of space for him to have past and no one warned me to move out of his way.

311. Almost immediately after I had been hit, Dr Antigoni Grigorio wheeled the computer away from the reception area and into the patient ward area and told me to follow her with Dr Anna Gerratt. I was in pain and limping slightly, but I did not realise the extent of my injuries. Dr Anna Gerratt then began to ask me to assist her with her errands.

312. Dr Grigorio was insistent that I joined her and one of the other doctors for lunch but I declined. I was in pain and made my way to the library to sit down. I sent my mother a copy of my electronic diary entry by email and then telephoned her to inform her that I had been injured. I was very distressed and in pain. (I refer to email dairy entry of Virginia Jibowu, dated 20 October 2008 13:25:16, marked exhibit 168). She advised me to submit an incident report form and go to see our GP. I went back into the hospital and collected the Incident Report Form from the Christine Brown Ward. I made my way to the induction in the Western Education Centre (WEC). I was unable to continue following the induction due to the pain and telephoned to make an appointment with my GP. He could only fit me in for the next day.

313. That evening, a friend (Yenphan Ta) visited my home and I explained to her how I had been hit by a wheelchair on my placement. She told me I looked very ill. I felt very shaken and had a bad headache. She offered to meet another time, but I insisted that she stayed.

314. Instead of getting better, my leg got worst. I suffered immediate bruising, ‘foot drop’ and ‘loss of power’ to my left leg. My leg went cold and I suffered from stabbing pain in the calf and the foot.

315. On 21 October 2008, I visited my GP who advised me to take a week off and elevate my leg. (I refer to the letter from Dr Soysa dated 21 October 2008, marked exhibit 169)

316. On 21 October 2008 I submitted the incident report form electronically and by post to the Hospital and College (I refer to the incident report form, from Virginia Jibowu to King’s College Hospital’s ‘Risk office’, dated 20 October 2009 (submitted 21 October 2008)), marked document 170). I e-mailed and telephoned the College and spoke to Leah Meisrow (standing in for Emma Jones) in the Western Education Centre (Post-graduate Centre) and informed her that I would be absent that day and for the rest of the week due to the injury I had sustained. I asked her to pass the message on to my team. She asked me if I intended to return to the Hospital to complete my rotation. I thought the question was very strange and I confirmed that I intended to return once my leg got better (I refer to e-mails to King’s Risk team ( Cc to Leah Meisrow via the e-mail address she was using (Emma Jones) and my e-mail to King’s Risk (correct e-mail) Cc Richard Phillips, dated 21 October 2008, marked exhibit 171).

317. On 21 October 2008 Dr Richard Phillips informed me that I would be required to meet the 75% attendance requirement for that term regardless of my injury. I felt this was unfair as I had already completed, passed and been signed off for all the clinical aspects of the course (I refer to email from Dr Phillips to Virginia Jibowu, dated 21 October 2008, marked exhibit 172).

318. On 22 October 2008 I submitted a formal complaint to Dr Richard Phillips, copied to Paul Fairweather, regarding the recklessness/negligence of the porter. (I refer to the ‘Student complaint form 1’ (SC1) dated 22 October 2008 marked exhibit 173 and email from Virginia Jibowu to Dr Phillips (Cc Dr Bradbeer) marked exhibit 174). On 24 October Hannah Sewell sent me an email refusing to investigate my complaint stating that the 'nature of the incident falls outside the scope of the College Student Complaints Procedure as it did not take place on College premises and involved a member of Trust staff.' The porter service at King’s College Hospital was provided by Sedexo so it was odd that NHS Trust staff was involved. Hannah Sewell also informed me that the School could not ‘discount’ the absence caused by the incident. (I refer to the email from Hannah Sewell (Cc Paul Fairweather and Richard Phillips), dated 24 October 2008, marked exhibit 175)

319. I believe that the decision not to investigate the actions of the porter was grossly unfair as the College placed me to work at the hospital and had a duty to ensure I was placed in a safe environment. Also, part of King’s College Hospital belongs to or is controlled by King’s College London it was not correct that the College lacked jurisdiction to investigate incidents at the hospital. In addition, staff from King’s College work at the hospital, including the Head of the School of Medicine, Professor Greenough. I believe that the decision not to investigate my complaint was an attempt to cover up and a further act of victimisation.

320. The College has a duty to insure all students whilst they are at the College or on clinical attachment. It appears that I was insured during my resit year. By failing to insure me or offer me the benefit of the College insurance cover, the College failed in their duty towards me.

321. Due to my injury, on 23 Oct 2008, my mother paid for us to go by taxi for me to attend the meeting scheduled with Dr Caroline Bradbeer in order for me to get my log book signed. I was limping very badly and in a lot of pain. During the meeting, I asked Dr Bradbeer about an email provided to me under my Data Protection Act request in which she had stated that she had made an appointment for me to see her colleague, Cindy Sethi a specialist in HIV and STD in the male Lloyd clinic. (I refer to the email, date unclear- forwarded 21 August 2008, from Dr Bradbeer, Provided as part of DPA from KCL in 2008, marked exhibit 90). She confirmed that she had made the appointment and said that she was sure that I had attended. I was never informed about any such appointment so I had not attended. I was shocked by her complete disregard of my basic human rights. As I have not been sexually active there was no reason why she should have made this appointment and there was no reason why I should have attended. It was a completely inappropriate referral. This appointment would have provided Dr Bradbeer with access to my medical records. Dr Bradbeer acted not only without my consent, but against my instruction. Dr Bradbeer said she had done this in my ‘best interest’ due to my period pains. When I asked her why she had done this without my consent, she became evasive and told me that she thought I was ‘not allowed to talk about [my] appeal’ and showed me out of her office. She then requested that I was allocated to another Clinical Advisor (I refer to e-mail: the extract of Virginia Jibowu’s electronic dairy entry (forwarded to Anne Giwa-Amu) dated 24 October 2008, marked exhibit 176 ). I was never provided with details of an alternative Clinical Advisor. As it is a requirement of the course that students see their advisor at least once a rotation/term to be ‘signed off’. I should have been provided with a new advisor in anticipation of the new term/rotation. The college failed to do so.

322. The inappropriate referral to a male STD clinic is in breach of my human rights which affords me a right not to be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment and affords me a right to a private life. It also amounts to serious professional misconduct. This is in breach of GMC guidelines set out in ‘Tomorrows doctors’ (74, 76 and 77) stating ‘Medical students who are ill have the same right to confidentiality as other patients.’ (I refer to GMC publication ‘Tomorrows doctors’, marked exhibit 132). It is also disability discriminatory to subject me to detriment because of the severe dysmenorrhoea that I suffer from.

323. On 26 October 2008, I submitted a formal complaint (Student Complaints Procedure B6) against Dr Caroline Bradbeer for interference in my health care. On 7 November 2008, Hannah Sewell (Assistant Registrar) refused to investigate my complaint against Dr Caroline Bradbeer and denied that Dr Bradbeer referred me to Dr Cindy Sethi. Hannah Sewell alleged that the referral was on my file but related to another student. Caroline Bradbeer on the other hand confirmed verbally that the referral related to me. Hannah Sewell refused to refer my complaint to the GMC as I requested. She arranged for me to be assigned a new clinical adviser which I had not requested or consented to. I was not informed of the name of my new clinical advisor before being asked to leave the course. I have not received an apology or explanation from Dr Caroline Bradbeer and Hannah Sewell refused to issue a ‘Completion of Procedures’ letter at that stage on the basis that I could appeal the decision not to investigate my complaint. I got the impression that Hannah Sewell was simply frustrating my attempts to obtain an independent and unbiased investigation. (I refer to the SC1 complaint form (Re Caroline Bradbeer) and e-mail from Virginia Jibowu to Paul Fairwather( Cc Hannah Sewell and Richard Phillips) dated 26 October 2008, marked exhibit 177 and the email response (Re Caroline Bradbeer SC1 complaint): from Hannah Sewell to Virginia Jibowu (Cc Richard Phillips and Paul Fairweather) dated 7 November 2008 , marked exhibit 178)

324. On 25 October 2008, I sent a letter to King’s College Hospital (KCH Legal Compliance Officer) requesting a copy of the CCTV footage from the Lonsdale ward under the DPA. (I refer to the letter from Virginia Jibowu to KCH (DPA request re: CCTV footage), dated 25 October 2008, marked exhibit 179). In a letter dated 24 June 2009, Louise Morgan of Irwin Mitchel Solicitors informed me that ‘no CCTV footage had been provided following their request’.

325. On 30 October 2008, my mother wrote to the University Visitor (The Archbishop of Canterbury) to protest about the behaviour of KCL management. In a letter dated 30 December 2008, Patronage Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Derek Fullarton) responded informing her that ‘the role of the Archbishop as Visitor to King’s College’ had changed ‘in that he no longer takes an active part in dealing with formal representations or appeals’. He informed her that ‘the College statutes make provision for these matters to come within the direct purview of the governing body of the College. (I refer to the letter dated 30 December 2008 from D D Fullarton, marked exhibit 179a). Leaving the offending party to examine their behaviour was inequitable and unjust.

326. On 31 October 2008, I referred myself to the Occupational Health Department at St Thomas’ Hospital. My mother attended with me and paid my taxi fare to and from the hospital. I was in agony but keen to complete the resit year if that is what I had to do to qualify. I was informed by Xin (the Nurse in charge) that reasonable adjustments should be made to allow me to return to my course and that I would be entitled to time off to recover (I refer to e-mail: from Virginia Jibowu to Hannah Sewell and Dr Richard Phillips dated 31 October 2008 ‘, marked exhibit 180). On 3 November 2008, Hannah Sewell sent me an email informing me that I should not have referred myself to Occupational Health as they would need a clinical assessment from my GP before seeing me and a completed referral from the School. (I refer to the email from Hannah Sewell to Virginia Jibowu (Cc Dr Richard Phillips) dated 3 November 2008, marked exhibit 181). Hannah Sewell informed me that the School might decide to look at a ‘formal interruption’ to my studies based on my attendance requirement, despite the fact that my injury was caused by a NHS hospital porter whilst on clinical placement during a ‘resit year’. (I refer to the email Re: interruption of studies, from Hannah Sewell to Virginia Jibowu, dated 25 November 2008, marked exhibit 182). I had made every effort to be assessed by the Occupational Health Department to return to my course.

327. On 31 October 2008, I returned to my GP as the pain in my leg got worse. I had a stabbing pain in my foot and calf muscle. He confirmed ‘loss of power’ to the left leg and that the left leg was 1-2 degrees colder than the right leg. He also diagnosed ‘foot drop’. He gave me a further week off. My GP advised that I would need to see a neurologist and an orthopaedic surgeon but said this would be a problem as I did not have private health insurance. He later informed me that he was connected to King’s but did not go into details. Medical students from King’s College were obtaining placements at my General Practitioner’s premises.

328. After visiting my GP on 31 October 2008, I travelled to Wales with my mother. I was in so much pain that at about 2 am (in the morning of 1 November 2008) my mother took me to the Accident and Emergency Department at the University Hospital in Cardiff. We were afraid that I might have had thrombosis. The doctor that attended to me confirmed that there was injury to the muscles on the left calf resulting in the swelling, pain and discomfort that I was experiencing. She advised me to take the full dose of paracetamol to reduce the swelling and allow me to walk on the leg.

329. On 2 November 2008 I reported the injury and the racial harassment I was being subjected to at Brixton police station. Without listening to the background facts, the officer said there was no evidence that it was anything more than an accident at work and that it should be investigated by the hospital. On 13 December 2008 I reported the incident to Kennington Police Station and was given a crime reference no: 1240755/08. The case was transferred back to Brixton station and on 15 December I was contacted. They refused to investigate as the PC that attended King’s College Hospital had been informed that the CCTV footage had been routinely destroyed after 30 days. I was advised by DC Mat Price to submit a complaint to the IPCC, regarding the initial delay in investigating my complaint which I did (I refer to Correspondance and documentation between the Metropolitan police, Virginia Jibowu and Anne Giwa-Amu: complaints, marked exhibit 183).

330. In a letter date 4 November 2008, my GP (Dr Soysa) confirmed that I had attended the GP practice on 21 October 2008 to obtain treatment for my leg injury. (I refer to the letter from Dr Soysa dated 4 November 2008, marked exhibit 183e )

331. On 5 November 2008, my mother paid for me to see a private orthopaedic surgeon (Mr John Angel) at the London Foot & ankle Centre. I was in agony and I was struggling to walk unaided. We had to pay for a taxi to the hospital and when I arrived, I was provided with a wheelchair and my mother had to push me around the hospital. Mr Angel later provided me with crutches. He confirmed the following:



- walks with difficulty

- slight wasting of the left calf

- the whole leg was 1-2 degrees cooler than the right

- bruise on the lower border of the gastrocnemius muscle

- discolouration at the back of the ankle

- tenderness involving the whole calf

- knee extends the last few degrees reluctantly and lacks the last 20 degrees of fusion

- there seems to be patello-femoral tenderness



The MRI scan revealed a haematoma in the calf.



Diagnosis: Bruising left calf following a direct blow.



He recommended physiotherapy and advised that I saw a knee specialist.

(I refer to the letter from Mr Angel, dated 5 November 2008, marked exhibit 184)

332. On 6 November 2008, Dr Phillips sent me an email expressing his concern that I was still away from my placement and requesting a medical certificate. I had already submitted my sick notes. ( I refer to the email correspondence with Dr Phillips dated 6 November 2008 and 10 November 2008, marked exhibit 184a)

333. On 7 November 2008, Hannah Sewell sent me an email informing me that she had looked at the issues raised in relation to my formal complaint against Dr Bradbeer and decided that ‘…Dr Bradbeer did not refer [me] to Dr Sethi.’ And that ‘while there is an email in [my] file which mentions such a referral, Dr Bradbeer has confirmed that this was an error…’. (I refer to the email correspondence between Virginia Jibowu and Hannah Sewell dated 7-17 November 2008, marked exhibit 183a ). As the College were not prepared to conduct any investigations into my complaints, I requested a ‘Completion of Procedures’ letter to allow me to seek the assistance of the OIA but Hannah Sewell refused to provide this on the basis that the complaint had not reached the third stage of the College’ internal complaint procedure. On 17 November 2008, Hannah Sewell sent me a letter giving me 10 days to ‘refer [my] complaint to the academic Registrar if [I] believe this complaint has not been dealt with to [my] satisfaction’. She referred me to stage Two of the Complaint Procedure in section B6 of the Academic Regulations. (I refer to letter from Hannah Sewell to Virginia Jibowu (previously sent via e-mail 7 November 2008, Cc Paul Fairweather and Richard Phillips) dated 17 November 2008, marked exhibit 183b) I appealed under this procedure but my appeal was unsuccessful. The College has still failed to reach the third stage of this investigation or issue the Completion of Procedure letter.

334. On 6 November 2008, Laura Jones (examinations & Assessments –Medicine, notified me by email that she was sending me a form for me to sign by 24 November to confirm that I accepted the terms and conditions of my repeat year. (I refer to the email dated 6 November 2008 from Laura Jones, marked exhibit 183d) On 7 November 2008, a form was posted to me asking me to accept the conditions stated below:

• that the next attempt at the MB BS Part 5 is my second and FINAL attempt at the examinations

• that I should sit these at the next available opportunity in May 2009

• that I am required to fully complete all the requirements of the ECSA, in-course assessment and logbook, as well as the rules governing attendance and punctuality as outlined in the current MB BS Part 5 marking scheme and student handbook.

• That should I be unsuccessful at the next sitting of examinations and/or fail to complete any of the necessary requirements, the Exam Board will not permit any further attempts and I would be required to withdraw from the programme.

• The conditions are subject to change, should my EDR2 appeal be successful

(I refer to the form and envelopes dated 7 November 2008, marked exhibit 183d). The date it was posted was the day that my 75% attendance expired and I received this on 9 November 2008. My appeal had not been decided and the term did not apply to all other re-sit students. I informed the College that I regarded this as an unlawful act of victimization and that it was discriminatory as it had not been applied to all re-sit students. I made it clear that if I was forced to sign the form it would be under duress. I did not sign the form and on 21 November 2008, I received another email requesting that I returned the form ‘asap’. At this stage the extent of my injury was not clear.

335. On 10 November 2008, my mother paid for me to see a knee specialist. (Mr Barry Ferris (orthopaedic surgeon)). He confirmed that I had a haematoma in gastrocnemious, traumatic chondromalcia patellae, multiple sites of anterior knee pain including patello-tenderness caused by the injury sustained. He referred me to a physiotherapist. (I refer to the report of Mr Barry Ferris to Dr Soysa, dated 10 November 2008, marked exhibit 185).

336. On 11 November 2008, Dr Richard Phillips sent me an email informing me that he would refer me to Occupational Health for assessment. He copied Hannah Sewell so that she could make the administrative arrangements. On 18 November 2008 Hannah Sewell sent me an email with an attached occupational health referral form drafted in consultation with Dr Phillips. The reason given for the referral was 'short-term sickness absence' not 'work related accident'. He stated that:

a) 'Nearly four weeks ago, Virginia's leg was apparently knocked by a wheelchair. She has been seen privately by an orthopaedic surgeon at her own instigation and referred for physiotherapy'

He ticked boxes for the questions he wanted the occupational health to answer (I refer to Document: occupational health referral, dated , marked exhibit 186).

In the box for additional questions he stated:

b) ‘Virginia has now missed over three weeks of an eight week placement, which normally has a 75% attendance requirement. Students who repeat the final year are often under a great deal of stress, and Virginia has missed vital sessions with her peers, which have an important additional function in alleviating that stress. The School would like advice as to when she is likely to be able to return to the medical programme (including clinical activity), and on her ability to deal with the pressure of her repeat year, now under additional time constraints. The School has to assess whether we can offer an adapted course that will provide her with sufficient clinical experience for her to be adequately prepared for a reasonable attempt at the in-course and end of year assessments.'

337. I believe that his failure to correctly refer me on the basis of my injuries was an attempt to deny the incident had taken place. His focus on ‘stress’ was a further attempt by the College to orchestrate and fabricate a psychological problem that did not exist. It was an attempt to reinforce and corroborate Professor Rees’, Brian Salter’s, Professor Standring’s, Dr Sue Clarke’s, Dr Bradbeer’s and Dr Garlick’s defamatory remarks and fabricated history of paranoia to discredit my complaints and justify their unreasonable behaviour towards me. I was not given the opportunity of attending the Occupational Health assessment before being asked to formally interrupt my studies.

338. On 13 November I started physiotherapy. The physiotherapist estimated that my injury would take 6-8 weeks to heal – with treatment. He advised me not to force myself to walk on the leg as the haematoma could ossify. He also said that I have increased laxity in the knee joint of the left leg and am likely to have strained the posterior cruciate ligament. He advised me to continue to use the crutches to support myself. (I refer to the Physiotherapist report dated marked exhibit 187). He recommended nerve conduction studies to rule out injury to the tibial motor nerve.

339. As King’s College management were acting irrationally and unreasonably, delaying me from taking up my F1 post by forcing me to wait for KCL management to complete their ‘internal procedures’. I submitted my claim form at the Central London County Court on 21 November 2008 (claim no: 8CL09060), partly to preserve the time limits I obtained a Limitation Act Notice (I refer to the claim form 8CL09060 and stamped notice dated ,marked exhibit 188). The Court served this on KCL on the address at the Strand. This was returned by the Post Office stating that the address was incomplete (I refer to the Post Office receipt of postage , marked exhibit 188a). KCL rejected service on the basis that the documents should have been served on their Solicitors, Mills & Reeve (at the time). A fresh claim was submitted on 23 December 2008 and a Limitation Act notice was obtained ( I refer to Letter from Virginia Jibowu to the Court Manager, dated 23 December 2008 and claim form: Virginia Jibowu v The Governing body of King’s College, date stamped 23 December 2008, marked exhibit 189). This was returned by the Court requesting a letter from Mills & Reeves confirming that they would accept service on behalf of King’s. Therefore, on 28 January 2008, a third claim was submitted (claim no: 9CL00753). Following a request for judgment on claim 8CL09060, Judge Collins ordered that both claims should be joined (8CL09060 & 9CL00753). These are protected Acts.

340. On 30 November 2008 I appealed the decision not to investigate my formal complaints against the recklessness and negligence of the hospital porter and Dr Bradbeer. (I refer to the Student Complaint Form 2, dated 30 November 2008, marked exhibit 189a). My appeal was rejected and not progressed

341. On 30 November 2008, my mother telephoned King’s College Hospital in order to obtain the name of the porter who was responsible for causing my injuries. She spoke to Dr Anna Gerratt and Dr Antigoni Grigorio. Dr Gerratt told her that she “did not believe it happened’ and Dr Grigorio claimed that she did not see the incident. Dr Gerratt claimed that she first became aware of the incident a week later when she called the Postgraduate Education Centre at King’s College to find out why I was not attending. On 6 April 2009, Dr Gerratt provided a statement falsely stating that the ‘ward round progressed without incident and [she] left the ward when it was finished’. She stated ‘ I did not see any adverse incident…After about 10 days I contacted the Postgraduate Education Centre as I was concerned not to have seen her…’ (I refer to the statement of Dr Anna Gerratt dated 6 April 2009, marked exhibit 190).

342. Following her conversation with Dr Gerratt, my mother telephoned Dr Grigorio who told her that ‘they’ had telephoned the following day to find out why I was not attending. Dr Grigorio informed my mother that King’s College had told them that I had made a complaint that someone had put something in my food on 20 October 2008. I was so shocked at these false utterances and got the impression that there was a concerted effort by management to make out that I was paranoid. Dr Grigorio told my mother that she was sorry about my injury but she was busy and could not continue the discussion. When my mother told me what Dr Grigorio had said, I telephoned Dr Grigorio. Dr Grigorio confirmed that she had told my mother that I was alleged to have made a complaint that someone put something in my food. She said this was on my first day working with them. She was evasive and refused to go into detail. She asked me to call back to speak to her on a week day. She was implying that I had mental health problems. On 1 May 2009, Dr Grigoriou signed a statement claiming that she ‘did not notice anything unusual happening’ during the ward round on 20 October 2008 and that she ‘did not witness the incident….’ And ‘nobody (including Virginia Jibowu) informed [her] on that day that and incident or indeed injury had happened’. ( I refer to the telephone note of Virginia Jibowu’s conversation with Dr Grigorio on 30 November 2008, marked exhibit 191 and the statement of Dr Grigoriou dated 1 May 2009, marked exhibit 192). Although I wrote to Dr Grigorio requesting a statement of truth, she failed to comply with my request. (I refer to letter from Virginia Jibowu to the Legal Compliance Officer dated 30 June 2009, marked exhibit 193 and letter from Virginia Jibowu to Dr Grigoriou, marked exhibit 194)

343. On 31 November 2008, I submitted a formal complaint against Dr Gerratt and Dr Grigorio. (I refer to the ‘Student complaint Form 1’ dated 30 November 2008, marked exhibit 195). On 1 December 2008 Hannah Sewell refused to investigate my complaint that KCL had informed Dr Antigoni Grigorio and Dr Anna Gerratt that I had accused someone of putting something in my food and for implying I had mental health problems. Hannah Sewell instructed Brian Salter to inform me that ‘this issue had nothing to do with the College and will not be investigated’. On 9 December 2008 Brian Salter refused to investigate my formal complaint on the basis that there was no record of any conversations between members of staff of the College and King's College Hospital regarding my food (I refer to I refer to SC1 form dated 30 November 2008, and letter dated 9 December 2008, from Brain Salter to Virginia Jibowu, marked exhibit 196).

344. On 1 December 2008 my mother telephoned Ms Joe who was on reception at the time of the incident. Joe also denied witnessing the incident and told her that it would be impossible to identify the porter as there are 40-50 porters working at the hospital on any one shift.

345. On 1 December 2008 Paul Fairweather stated in an e-mail that there was ‘no need’ for me to be interviewed in relation to my complaints.

346. King’s College London and King’s NHS Trust failed to report my injury to the Health and Safety Executive in breach of their legal duty (I refer to correspondence between my mother (Anne Giwa-Amu) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 6 August 2009, 20 August 2009 and two e-mails of 21 August 2009, marked exhibit 196a; and HSE Revised incident selection criteria, 2005, marked exhibit 196b).

347. The security desk informed my mother that the CCTV footage was wiped every 30 days if there was no complaint reported to the security desk. As I submitted the incident report form to the NHS Trust on 21 October 2008, a Data Protection Act request on 25 October 2008 and a formal complaint to King’s College London on 22 October 2008, the CCTV footage should have been kept. King’s College Hospital have still failed to provide me with a copy of the CCTV footage or to confirm that the CCTV exists.

348. Due to the criminal nature of the actions by the staff and students at King’s, I submitted a formal complaint to the GMC. (I refer to letter of complaint from Virginia Jibowu to the GMC dated 1 December 2008, marked exhibit 197)

349. On 2 December 2008 Dr Richard Phillips informed me that I may be required to withdraw from the course on grounds of my failure to meet the 75% attendance requirement and he would refer me to Professor Greenough (Head of the School of Medicine) for her to make the decision. As the College had not given me the opportunity to attend the Occupational Health Department, I asked my Orthopaedic surgeon to respond to the questions raised by the College on the referral form. I still expected to be treated fairly and that reasonable adjustments would be made to allow me to qualify and take up my post.

350. On 8 December 2008, I sent Dr Phillips the response to the questions raised on the occupational health referral form completed by Mr Barry Ferris (Orthopaedic Surgeon). Mr Barry Ferris stated that:

a) My injury may not resolve completely.

b) He was unable to state when I would be able to return to my clinicals as it depended on how much pain I was in and my response to treatment.

c) The injury is likely to improve with time and likely to fluctuate.

d) It is unlikely to be progressive.

e) Whilst my knee is causing symptoms I may have difficulty climbing up and down stairs.

f) If any adjustments are required they will be temporary as it is likely my symptoms will continue to improve.

(I refer to the letter (Answering OH questions) from Mr Barry Ferris dated 8 December 2008, marked exhibit 198)

351. On 9 December 2008, I received a letter from Brian Salter (signed by Helen Huyrel) wrongly rejecting my formal complaints. (I refer to the letter from Brian Salter (pp Helen Huyrel), dated 9 December 2008, marked exhibit 196). On 15 December 2008, I sent a letter of appeal to Professor Philip Whitfield (Vice Principal students) against the decision to dismiss my complaints. (I refer to the letter of Appeal sent to Professor Whitfield, dated 15 December 2008, marked exhibit 199) These related to the failure to investigate the injury I sustained at King’s College Hospital (submitted 22 October 2008 and rejected on 24 October 2008 on the grounds of alleged lack of jurisdiction; against Dr Anna Gerratt and Dr Antigoni Grigorio for denying the incident at King’s College Hospital took place and Dr Grigorio informing my mother, Anne Giwa-Amu that I was absent from my placement as I had alleged that something was put in my food, implying I had mental health problems (submitted 30 November 2008 rejected due to alleged lack of jurisdiction) and against Dr Caroline Bradbeer’s interference in my health care and referral to a colleague at the STD clinic, submitted 26 October 2008 and appealed 30 November 2008. The appeal was late due to the injury I sustained on 20 October 2008 ( I refer to Student Complaint form 2 (SC2) from Virginia Jibowu, dated 30 November 2008, marked exhibit 183c).

My grounds of my appeal were:

• In relation to complaints 1 & 2, it is racially discriminatory and an act of victimisation to refuse to investigate my injury based on the fact that the injury took place at King’s College Hospital NHS Trust.

• King’s College staff work at King’s College Hospital. For example, Professor Greenough (Principal of King’s College) works in the Paediatric/Neonatal Department of the hospital.

• In relation to complaint 3. I was unable to respond within the 10 day deadline as I suffer from reduced mobility following the injury sustained at King’s College Hospital and I am in constant pain. I do not accept Dr Bradbeer’s explanation that she mistook me for another student.

352. On 8 December 2008, I provided Dr Richard Phillips and Hannah Sewell, copied to Professor Greenough and Paul Fairweather, a letter from my orthopaedic surgeon in response to the questions raised on the College occupational health referral form. I expected to be allowed to attend the Occupational Health assessment before my meeting with Professor Greenough. On 9 December 2008, Hannah Sewell informed me by email that my referral to the Occupational Health would depend on the outcome of my meeting with Professor Greenough. (I refer to the email dated 8 December 2008, subject ‘Injury at King’s College Hospital and the response from Hannah Sewell dated 9 December 2008, marked exhibit 200).

353. On the 10 December I was contacted by Esther on behalf of Professor Greenough asking me to attend a meeting with Professor Greenough on 16 December 2008 at King's College Hospital. I agreed to attend with my mother and asked for the College to reimburse our taxi expenses as my injury was sustained during my clinical attachment at King’s College Hospital making the College liable. Professor Greenough agreed to this to reimburse me. (I refer to the email from Ester (Dr Greenough’s PA) to Virginia Jibowu, dated 10 December 2008, marked exhibit 201a, my response dated , marked exhibit 201b, and e-mail: agreement to pay my taxi fare from Ester (Dr Greenough’s PA) to Virginia Jibowu, dated marked exhibit 202).

354. On 16 December 2008 I attended the meeting with my mother. Professor Greenough told me that she was sorry to hear about my leg and that she had an accident on the ward and ended up in a wheelchair for 6 months. Professor Greenough said that she had been forced to use crutches for a year after that. She said that there are things we take for granted, like the speed we walk. She had found that people weren't as polite as they should be. She had found people rude as no one held doors open for her. My mother told her that people had been extremely helpful and supportive towards me and I agreed.

355. Professor Greenough went on to say that she had been speaking with other senior colleagues and discussed the time I have had taken off. They had decided that the only option is for me to have a formal interruption of my studies. Richard Philips (Head of Year Five) had said he did not see how I could make up the time I had lost so they felt this is the best thing for me. She said this was College procedures governed by the GMC guidelines which they had to abide by. She said that looking at the way I walked, I obviously would not be able to attend.

356. I told Professor Greenough that I would not agree to an interruption of my studies as this was a resit year and I had already been signed off for my in-course assessment and met the GMC attendance requirement in the previous academic year. (This included log book, ECSA and Special Study Modules). I reminded her that the College policy states that students only have to resit modules or exams which they have not already past. I told her that as a re-sit student the 75% attendance did not apply to me especially as my appeal against the decision of the Exam Board was still pending. I explained to her that interrupting my studies will cause me to de-skill and lose my knowledge which would be a major set back to my medical career. I informed her that I did not agree that I had failed my final examination and that the College should allow my appeal and graduate me in January 2009 to allow me to take up my F1 post in February 2009.

357. I informed Professor Greenough that my injury was caused by a porter running into the back of my leg when I had my back to him. I explained that I had been standing still by the wall focusing on what Dr Grigorio and Dr Garratt were doing. I asked why the College had refused to investigate the incident or retrieve the CCTV footage. Professor Greenough informed me that it was a member of the trust staff that caused my injury so the College would not get involved. Hannah Sewell also said that my injury involved a member of Trust staff (I refer to the email from Hannah Sewell dated 24 October 2008, marked exhibit 175). My mother asked Professor Greenough whether she worked for King’s College Hospital or for King’s College London as she had invited us for a meeting at the hospital in her capacity as Head of the King’s College Medical School. Professor Greenough explained that she was employed by King’s College London although we were attending the meeting at the Hospital. She explained that the room we were in belonged to King’s College London. She said that there were members of staff employed by King’s College working at the NHS Trust.

358. My mother told Professor Greenough that we did not accept that my injury was caused by accident. She told her that it appeared very suspicious that the two doctors I was speaking to at the time of the incident both denied it happened. Moreso, that the doctors had informed her, that the College falsely notified them that I was away from my placement as I had alleged something was put into my food on the day of the incident. Also it was strange that the Sodexo, porter service had informed her that none of their porters were authorised to be on the ward at 11.45 am on 20 October 2008 when the incident took place. My mother told her that we had reported the incident to the police and made a complaint to the GMC.

359. My mother told Professor Greenough that if the College did not believe that I was suitable to work as a doctor, they should not have kept me on the course for 6 years before preventing me from qualifying. This was in breech of GMC guidelines regarding student progress as set out in the ‘Tomorrows Doctors’ 69-73. Professor Greenough said that this was not the case.

360. I informed Professor Greenough that my failure to attend the course was the fault of the College as within two weeks of the incident I had referred myself to the Occupational Health Department. I told her that it was for the College to act quickly and to make reasonable adjustments to enable me to meet the attendance requirement. Professor Greenough asked me to send her the date I first attended the Occupational Health Department, which I did.

361. In a letter dated 17 December 2008, Professor Whitfield wrongly rejected my appeal against the colleges failure to investigate my injury and Caroline Bradbeer. ( I refer to the letter dated 17 December 2008 from Vice-Principal (students) Professor Philip whitfield, marked exhibit 203)

362. On 18 December 2008, I provided Richard Phillips and Hannah Sewell with a copy of my sick note confirming my absence was due to my injury. (I refer to email dated 18 December 2008, marked exhibit 204 ).

363. On 19 December 2008, Professor Anne Greenough informed me by email that if my appeal was successful I would still be required to repeat the year. She added that after much discussion with senior colleagues, it was her opinion that it would not be possible for me to continue on the programme that year and that I must interrupt my studies with a view to returning in September 2009. She stated that the School cannot support my continuation on a repeat year with so little attendance. This is despite the fact that I had already completed and been signed off for the In-course assessments (clinical component including special study modules, ECSA and log- book) of the final MBBS year. Professor Greenough has also stated that before I could recommence my studies in 2009 I would have to be assessed by the Occupational Health Department to determine whether I will be physically and emotionally able to complete my course (I refer to the e-mail from Professor Greenough to Virginia Jibowu (Cc Hannah Sewell), dated 19 December 2008, marked exhibit 205).

364. On 27 December 2008, I write to the Chief executive of King’s college Hospital (Tim Smart), copied to Professor Anne Greenough and Dr Philpott-Howard (KCL), requesting the name of the porter that caused my injury and whether CCTV footage was retrieved on submission of my incident report form. I requested other information but I had no response. (I refer to my letter dated 27 December 2008 to Mr Tim Smart, marked exhibit 205c).

365. Also on 27 December 2008, I wrote to Professor Greenough asking her to confirm that my that my F1 post would be held open until 2010 as the offer was now subject to the agreement of KCL. I also provided her with my travel expenses claim form and receipts for which I was reimbursed. (I refer to the letter dated 27 December 2008 to Professor Greenough, marked exhibit 205d)

366. Both my Solicitor, Mr Davies and my mother wrote to the OIA in an attempt to obtain an unbiased and independent investigation. In a letter dated 30 December 2008, Ms Jo Nuckley of the OIA informed Mr Davies that my complaint was ‘not yet eligible for review under the Rules of the scheme’. ( refer to the letter from the OIA to Mr Davies dated 30 December 2008, marked exhibit 205a and letter to Anne Giwa-Amu from OIA, dated 21 September 2008, marked 205b ). On 1 September 2009, Anne Giwa-Amu wrote to the OIA requesting a review of Ms Walton’s decision not to investigate my complaint. On 21 September 2009 Susanna Reece (senior assistant adjudicator) responded stating that the OIA would not consider the complaint due to the court proceedings.

367. On 5 January 2009, I sent an email to Richard Phillips and Hannah Sewell asking for the formal notification of the decision to interrupt my studies. I did not know whether I was expected to attend college. I also asked when the exam board would meet as I was anxious to know whether I would be able to take up my F1 post to start in February. (I refer to the email dated 5 January 2009 to Richard Phillips and Hannah Sewell, marked exhibit 206).

368. On 6 January 2009, I was sent an email from the UK Foundation Programme office congratulating me and informing me of my allocation to a foundation school dependant on passing the final exams. My academic ranking and the score for application answers was 54 (I refer to the email dated 6 January 2009 from The UK Foundation Programme Office, marked exhibit 207).

369. In a letter dated 13 January 2009, it was confirmed that management had interrupted my studies. (I refer to the letter from Anne Greenough Hannah, dated 13 January 2009 and envelope stamped 15 January 2009, marked exhibit 208 and letter from Hannah Sewell dated 13 January 2009 and envelope stamped 15 January 2009, marked exhibit 209). I believe that the actions of Professor Anne Greenough in removing me from my educational programme amount to expulsion from the university. Due to the treatment I received from students and management whilst at the university, I am not willing to risk my safety by returning to KCL. My expulsion is in breach of my education contract as I had a reasonable expectation that I would be protected from racial harassment, examined fairly and in accordance with the College regulations and not expelled without due cause ( I refer to the Regulations concerning students B7: Principals Emergency Powers (clause 7.1 suspension and exclusion), marked exhibit 210 )The actions of management amount to a breach of the duty of trust and confidence.

370. On 16 January 2009, I issued a deadline of 01 February 2009 for King’s to complete my appeal. However on 19 January 2009 I received an e-mail from Paul Fairweather stating that the College would not meet my deadline and would not provide me with a formal deadline of when my appeal will be decided. He did not provide a reason other than ‘staff availability’. (I refer to my letter dated 16 January 2009, marked exhibit 211 and the response from Paul Fairweather dated 19 January 2009, marked exhibit 212). I have received several e-mails from the college withdrawing previous deadlines which the college set for themselves, including one stating that they couldn’t obtain a Chair so an appeal hearing couldn’t take place. The decisions of management appeared to be to frustrate my attempts to have a fair hearing and to be allowed to qualify.

371. On 21 Jan 2009, I was sent a cheque of £21.60 by KCL to cover the cost of my taxi fare for attending the meeting with Anne Greenough as my injury was caused by a King’s NHS Trust porter (I refer to the KCL cheque for the sum of £21.60, marked exhibit 213).

372. On 22 January 2009, I was sent a remittance advice marked ‘Withdrawn Application’ by the GMC. I had not withdrawn my application and my registration was required as I had applied for the F1 post that year and I had to be registered to start work. My application must have been withdrawn by a member of staff at KCL which was further victimisation. (I refer to the GMC remittance advice dated 22 January 2009, marked exhibit 214 ). On the same date, Laura Sugrue (GMC Investigation Officer) notified me that the GMC would not investigate the doctors I had complained about as the events fell outside their 5 year rule. As the events were within 5 years I appealed the decision but my appeal was rejected. (I refer to the letter from the GMC dated 22 January 2009, marked exhibit 215)

373. In a letter dated 23 February 2009, Paul Fairweather notified me of the Complaint Appeal Committee to be held on 4 March 2009. (I refer to the letter from KCL re: ‘Complaints Appeal Committee’ including papers, dated 23 February 2009, marked exhibit 216). The unreasonable delay in responding, the failure to investigate, and the failure to interview me were in breach of the College Procedure on Bullying and Harassment. This states that the Investigator will conduct his or her investigation by interviewing the complainant and the individual or party named and that on provision of the written report to the Head of Admin and College Secretary and a response should be provided to me within 25 working days. (I refer to Paragraph 6.4 of the College procedure on Bullying and Harassment, marked exhibit 124).

374. On 2 March 2009 I sent Paul Fairweather an email confirming that I would attend the Appeal hearing accompanied by my mother. As my injury had occurred whilst I was on clinical placement, I requested that the College should pay for my taxi fare. Paul Fairweather agreed to this. (I refer to my email to Paul Fairweather dated 2 March 2009 marked exhibit 217 and confirmation from Alitse Poulson (EA to Anne Poulson Director of Academic services) stating that my taxi fare would be reimbursed, marked exhibit 218 ).

375. On 3 March 2009, I submitted an amended chronology to the members of the Complaints Appeal Committee as Paul Fairweather had compiled a chronology of events starting after I obtained the results of my final examination. I also provided the Appeal Committee with a list of ‘additional points’ in relation to the documents Paul Fairweather had compiled for the Appeal Committee. (I refer to my email dated 3 March 2009 to Professor Freedman, Dr McFadzean, Dr Daniel and Andrew McGrath, marked exhibit 219 ).

376. On 4 March 2009, I attended the meeting with the Appeal Committee accompanied by my mother. As I was still on crutches the College reimbursed me for my travel expenses to enable me to attend. The appeal Committee was simply to consider the Academic Registrar’s decision not to interview me or the named parties in my complaint of 7 July 2008. Also the Appeal Committee was to decide the extent to which the decision not to interview me was significant in the decision not to investigate my complaint under the procedure for harassment, bullying and discrimination for students. The Committee was to decide whether the ‘procedural error’ in not interviewing me constituted ‘a significant procedural error’.

377. During the hearing on 4 March 2009, I stated that I should have been interviewed for the following reasons:

• It is standard practice in all organisations that during an investigation witnesses should be interviewed and signed witness statements obtained from all the individuals concerned.

• Clause 6.4 of the King’s College procedure for bullying and harassment states:

• ‘The Investigator will conduct his or her investigation by interviewing the complainant and the individual/party named in the complaint. Information may be sought as appropriate from others with knowledge material to the complaint and this may take the form of written submissions and/or personal interviews’

• By failing to interview me, KCL have acted in breach of my education contract.

• The legal time limit for racial harassment cases is 6 years so none of my claims were out of time.

• There are criminal offences, including assault which I had complained about which should have been investigated

378. The documents presented to the Complaint Appeal Committee by Paul Fairweather appeared designed to discredit me as a witness by making me appear unreasonable and irrational. He provided an incomplete chronology which made out that I had not expressed any concerns prior to being failed at the final exam. A submitted an amended version to the Committee by email on 3 March 2009. To ensure a fair appeal hearing I requested that my amended chronology should be used.

379. Also, Paul Fairweather included documents that that were designed to influence the Committee against me. He included a letter from Emon Malik’s mother, who was a Senior Lecturer and Chief Examiner at King’s (Mrs Ferzana Malik). This was dated 4 October 2007 and signed on behalf of the students in St Lucia. I believe that this had been backdated as it was not provided to me following my request for information under the DPA. Mrs Malik’s letter introduced undue influence and bias into the Committee hearing. The letter was of no relevance to my appeal. Mrs Malik was not in St Lucia and I had already made it clear that I had not sent any letters to Emon’s home address. In addition, Paul Fairweather included the defamatory email correspondence dated 5 October 2007 between Dr Sue Clarke, Professor Rees and Dr Pamela Garlick which falsely stated that I had mental health issues. This was highly detrimental to my appeal as the Committee failed to take my complaint seriously. Also, Paul Fairweather presented a document that he had created (A sequence of communication sheet) falsely claiming that I had posted letters to Emon Malik’s home address in the UK between 2-21 September. It would have been impossible for me to have done so as I was in St Lucia on 2 September and arrived back in the UK on 25 September 2007. He also included one of my letters that had been annotated with Dr Sue Clarke by the students in St Lucia. This made my letter appear incomprehensible (I refer to the annotated letter dated 27 September 2007, supplied under DPA request 2008, marked exhibit 86). The document was not signed by Dr Sue Clarke or the students I went to St Luica with. All this was designed to destroy my credibility by making me appear irrational to the Committee members.

380. The following documents which were in my favour and important to my appeal were excluded by Paul Fairweather:



- Elective sign off from Wits hospital in Johanesburg

- Letter from the Dean in St Lucia

- Elective sign off from Victoria Hospital in St Lucia

- References provided by Dr Anderson and Professor Leigh for my F1 post

- Missing ‘wrong’ MCQ answer sheet

- MCQ answer sheets for paper 1 & 2

- OSCE marking sheets

- Email correspondence in relation to the final examination

- email correspondence between myself and my mother whilst I was in St Lucia

381. During the appeal hearing, the Chairman told me that the College was ‘not a police force’ to investigate my complaints. I found his utterances shocking and it illustrated ignorance of the Colleges legal obligations. My conversation was recorded without my knowledge or consent. I only noticed the recorder by Paul Fairweather towards the end of the appeal when it clicked at the end. Paul Fairweather confirmed the recording had taken place and I requested a copy to be sent to me. This has not yet been provided.

382. On 4 March 2009, I wrote to James Allison (Legal Compliance Officer) protesting at being recorded without my consent at the Complaint Appeal Committee hearing and requesting a copy of the recording. This was not provided to me. I also asked for an explanation as to why I had not been provided with the letter from Mrs F. Malik following my DPA request. This letter appeared for the first time at the Complaints Appeals Committee hearing ( I refer to letter to Mr Allison (Legal Compliance Officer) dated 4 March 2009, marked exhibit 220).

383. On the 9 March 2009, Paul Fairweather signed the College defence statement which contained numerous false statements.

In para. 21 he stated:



'In 2002, the claimant applied for a place on the College's Medicine MBBS programme. The claimant was interviewed for a place on the MBBS programme on 29 April 2001 on the same basis as every other applicant to the defendant's MBBS programme'

It is true that I applied for the MBBS 5 year course. It is false that I was interviewed for a place on the MBBS 5. I was interviewed for a place on the Extended Medical Degree Programme (EMDP 6 year course) which I did not apply for. Based on that interview, I was provisionally offered a place on attaining CCC grades at A level and a pass at the additional AS level.

In para. 22 he stated:



'In the academic year in question, on the sole basis of her predicted academic grades, other UCAS information and interview, the claimant was offered a place on the MBBS programme upon condition that she achieved certain results in her GCE A-levels. The claimant did not achieve the required A level grades and therefore she was not admitted to the MBBS programme and the conditional offer was formally withdrawn by the College'.

As stated above, I was not interviewed for the MBBS programme despite my predicted grades being AAC. I also took up an additional AS level in my final year of A level for which I had no predicted grade. The offer made by KCL was for 'CCC at A level and a pass at AS level, I exceeded this offer by obtaining ACC at A level and a B at AS level, I missed a B grade in Chemistry by less than 1%. On the points system this would have equated to ABB which is the entry requirement for the MBBS. I was never made an offer for the MBBS 5 year course so no offer was withdrawn.

In para. 27 he stated:

'Notwithstanding the limitation issues identified at paragraph 7 above, the defendant denies as a matter of fact that its EMDP students were required to wear badges identifying them specifically as students registered on the EMDP programme as alleged in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the claim. All of the defendant's medical students are required to wear badges identifying them as medical students. Those badges do not specify a programme of study.'



This statement is clearly false as indicated by the identity badge worn by EMDP students. (I refer to a copy of the identity badge worn by EMDP students, marked exhibit 32)



In para. 28, he stated:

“Accordingy

28.1 the claimant's claim that EMDP students were required to wear badges denoting their registration on the EMDP programme is denied; and

28.2 It follows that as a matter of fact. EMDP students could not have been 'stigmatised' on that basis as alleged in paragraph 13 of the particulars of claim”.

The above statement is clearly false for the reasons stated above.

In para. 33 he stated:

'... is denied that the EMDP students were required to undertake psychological tests, sociological assessments, psychological assessments, IQ tests and a questionnaire.'

This statement is false as students on the EMDP course were compelled to see an

educational psychologist (Sheila Macre) who recorded the interviews with individual

students. The College have admitted that this was part of Dr Garlick's research project.

(I refer to exhibit 8: KCL response to RRA questionnaire, dated , marked exhibit 38). Students were informed that

Scotland, New Zealand and Australia had already piloted some of these tests and they

wanted to introduce it in the UK (I refer to exhibit 9: KCL letter dated 24 May 2002 , marked exhibit 36). The students were never

told what tests were being used or given the results or feedback from any of these tests. They appear similar to the Myer-Briggs-Jung personality/typology testing and appeared

to be character assessments not medical or scientific in nature. Questions requested

private and personal data on the student etc identifying their strengths and weaknesses,

likes and dislikes.

The tests were compulsory and we were told that non-attendance was a disciplinary matter with the possibility of suspension. Non-attendance was to be 'flagged up’. The students were informed that these tests, along with the IQ tests performed, were required by the College. Before taking some of the sociological/other tests the students were informed by Dr Garlick that someone would be given a 'cash-prize' for filling out the questionnaire as many of the students didn't want to do them. None of the students were given any 'cash prize'"

In para. 34 he stated:

'...It is denied that:

EMDP students *were treated with suspicion and compelled to undertake psychological tests and sociological assessments during the first year on the MBBS Extended programme, for no apparent reason'.

This statement is also false for the reasons already mentioned above.

384. On 18 March 2009, Paul Fairweather sent a copy of the appeal outcome letter informing me that the appeal was unsuccessful and would be forwarded to the Board of examiners and a ‘special meeting’ would be convened to consider the appeal of my exam results. ( I refer to the letter from Paul Fairweather, ‘outcome of Appeal’ dated 18 March 2009, marked exhibit 221).

385. King’s College had conducted research ‘investigating the causes and repercussions of staff bullying at NHS Trusts in order to design innovative procedures to minimise future incidents’ and concluded that ‘staff bullied by their managers reported ‘significantly lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels if intention to leave that those bullied just by their colleagues’. David Guest, Professor in Organisational Psychology and Human Resources Management at King’s College London, commented that; ‘victims of bullying and harassment are more likely to display higher levels of stress, anxiety and depression, lower job satisfaction and increased sickness absence…’. In view of these findings KCL had a duty to investigate my complaints and this failure to act was negligent. (I refer to the News archive 2008 King’s study aims to cut bullying amongst NHS staff, 11 Dec 2008, PR 264/08, marked exhibit 221a)

386. In a letter dated 3 April 2009, Paul Fairweather informed me that the decision of the examination Board remained unchanged and I had failed MB BS finals (I refer to Letter From Paul Fairweather (Cc Dr Clayden and Ms Laura Jones): Representations from a candidate concerning a decision of a Board of Examiners (EDR2), dated 3 April 2009, marked exhibit 222).

387. On 15 April 2009, I sent a letter to the Academic Registrar appealing against the decision of the Board of Examiners in accordance with regulation A2 (I refer to the KCL A2 regulations, marked exhibit 108 ) under both of the permitted grounds for the hearing of an appeal as stated in regulation A2, 14.12 i) and ii). Academic Regulations Section 14.12 states:



‘Following the publication of a decision by the relevant Board of Examiners in accordance with these regulations the hearing of a formal appeal against that decision may be allowed, at the discretion of the Academic Registrar, in the following circumstances:



i) if, in the view of the Academic Registrar, the Board of Examiners has not supplied an adequately detailed and clear explanation of the Board’s reasons for any decision taken under Regulation 14.10, above, and if sufficient evidence remains that the request for a reconsideration warrants further consideration.



ii) If, in the view of the academic Registrar, the Board of Examiners has failed to communicate its decision within a reasonable time-frame.

388. I also appealed the decision of the Board of examiners on the grounds that the conduct of the investigation of my complaint under the College’s procedure on Bullying and Harassment for Students and also under the B6 Complaint Procedure has been procedurally unfair, prejudicial and biased therefore the basis of their decision was fundamentally flawed. (I refer to my letter: Appeal of the decision of the Board of Examiners, dated 15 April 2009, marked exhibit 223). Dr Clayden’s statements (in bold italics below) were flawed. I have provided my criticism in bullet points bellow:



17.1 ‘Board was not satisfied that the candidate was unable, or for valid reasons unwilling to submit this information before the Board reached its original decision’



• This statement is unclear as to what information is referred to.

• I followed the correct procedures in bring the above information to the attention of the College.

• I was not aware that a decision was made to monitor me following my placement in St Lucia as this was only disclosed under my Data Protection Act request so I could not have brought this to the attention of the board before their final decision.

• In regards to the MCQ, I brought the irregularities that took place during the examination to the attention of Dr Richard Phillips and Alex Porter, and I expected to have my papers fairly marked.

• I did not submit a mitigating circumstances form in relation to the MCQ examinations as a group circular informed the students that the College was aware of the irregularity.

• I did not want my paper nullified as I felt confident that I had passed the examination and did not wish to void a paper I had passed.

• In relation to the OSCE examination, I did not report that the examiner was asleep as I expected all students to have been affected by this and adjustments would have been made/the examination removed.



17.2 ‘The Board carefully considered the candidate's perception of victimisation, racial discrimination and harassment as potentially affecting her performance in the assessments. The candidate has provided no evidence of this when attending the examinations’



• As can be seen from the documentation provided, senior members victimisation as they were involved.



17.3 ‘In fact the candidate stated that she felt happy at the end of the OSCE and made no report of harassment or being affected by related additional stress during the exams’.



• Despite the irregularities during my OSCE examination, I was confident that my performance was good enough to have passed the OSCEs well. In addition to this I expected to be examined fairly and I did not expect to be subjected to further victimisation and harassment by staff during my final examinations.



17.4 ‘In relation to some of the administrative errors that the candidate has alleged, the Board determined that it should not review its decision’.



• No explanation is provided as to why the Board decided not to review its decision and this decision indicates bias.

• I was given the wrong examination paper for the first day of examinations, yet no explanation is provided on how many other students were affected or who the invigilator was.

• The ‘wrong’ examination paper which was taken from me on the first day had the same layout as the second half of the examination on the following day. Hence the second parts for day 1 and day 2 were different. My papers should have been examined following my complaint.

• The investigation should have looked into why students were required to fill in their names and candidate numbers on the final examination papers in breech of the College policy.

• The investigation should have looked into the fact that I was not allowed to void the MCQ paper before it was taken from me. This would have resulted in an additional paper being fed through the machine causing an error and rejecting all my examination papers.

• I was informed under my DPA request that the additional ‘wrong’ paper was destroyed. As I had made a complaint about this, my paper should not have been destroyed but kept as evidence. of staff at the College were aware of the harassment and

• Under my Data Protection Act request the layout of papers provided to me on the first and second day were the same. These were therefore not the papers which I had filled out during my examination.

• The investigation should have compared my examination papers against those of the other students in my year in order to decipher their inaccuracy.

• In a letter from Paul Fairweather, he stated that I have to re-sit the year because I had ‘failed the OSCE’. He did not state that I was also failed in my written examinations.



17.5 ‘In regard to the allegation about a sleeping examiner students were advised immediately before the OSCE to inform the circuit examiners of any irregularity during the OSCE. The candidate did not do this.’



• Stations include the global score and that of the patients. I expected to pass as the patient was awake and observed what I was doing. I did not expect the ‘sleeping examiner’ to fail me as I performed the station to a good standard and attempted to keep her alert by raising my voice and directing my speech at her. The examiner awarded me 69%, 1% below the pass threshold.

• When I moved onto the next station there was a big crash from the station with the sleeping examiner. An external invigilator was watching this, hence the circuit examiner was aware of the irregularities and I expected allowances to be made.



17.6 ‘It should be noted that the candidate failed 9 additional stations also and the results of these stations were not considered by the Board to be subject to procedural irregularities.’



• On the day of the OSCE examinations there were problems with the trains which meant that the College examiners were late and the external examiners had to step in to examine us. Some of the examiners would ‘viva’ me instead of allowing me to fully explain my management plan. This wasted valuable time and limited the marks I could attain. In addition to this many of the ‘Global’ marks are very low. I believe this is unfair as it is subjective and in many of the stations I felt that it was influenced by bias.



17.7 ‘There was no significance to the fact that Alex Porter did not publish the candidate’s re-scheduled OSCE as such alterations are not published. The candidate requested that the OSCE should be moved from 28 May 2008 for health reasons, and it was moved to 3 June 2008’.



• The alteration should have been published so that I knew where I was expected to go without having to ask Alex Porter.

• Also Alex Porter sent me an email informing me that it would be published, but it was not.





17.8 ‘In relation to the candidate’s anonymity even though students cite both their name and ID number on the MCQ paper, the marking of the paper is anonymous because it is performed by computer through optical scanning of the answer sheet. The pass mark for all students is decided in advance and the consideration of each student’s ranking at the part Board is anonymous’.



• The marking of the computer was not anonymous as an additional MCQ answer sheet was fed through the machine. This would have given an error on my name.

• I was informed by Dr Phillips that the pass mark is flexible as a student doing well on the written paper with a borderline fail at OSCE would be passed. In addition to this several people who were borderline-fail in their OSCE stations were permitted to pass without doing the extended OSCE. This is bias.



17.9 ‘In relation to the other administrative error that the candidate had alleged, the Board was satisfied that there was evidence that an administrative or procedural error had taken place regarding the answer sheet in the exam on 22 May 2008, but after reviewing its original decision determined that the error was not sufficiently substantive to have accounted for the candidate's performance. Unfortunately there was a random error in the second page of the answer sheet. This did not affect all students’.



• This was not a simple administrative error as I was singled out by the invigilator. On the day of the examination, all students were assigned a desk. My desk was in a corner, behind a beam at the back of the hall. Staff has a list of the student’s names and their place in the hall. Our examination papers were laid out on the tables prior to the start of exams. Everyone in the examination hall was doing the same paper hence there was no reason for my table to have been laid out with the ‘wrong’ examination paper prior to the exam. The invigilator stood next to my desk and watched me fill out my details on the ‘wrong’ paper. She held just one ‘correct’ paper in her hand and could have given this to me before I filled out my details on the ‘wrong’ paper. Only after I filled in my name and candidate number did she give me the ‘correct’ paper.





17.10 There was no evidence that my performance in the affected written paper was worse than that seen in the second paper the following day despite the error in the initial supply of the answer sheet for the first day paper.’



• As stated above there appears to be a problem with the second part of both MCQ papers provided to me under the Data Protection Act request. When I sat the exam, the two ‘correct’ second parts to the exams were on different papers. The two copies provided to me under my DPA request were the same. This means that one or both of the second part of my exam papers are not my own. I would like to request that my original papers are compared against those of other students taking the same examination as me in 2008.



17.11 ‘After detailed consideration the Board felt that at no stage was the candidate singled out for unfair or unusual treatment in the assessment. All students who had been affected were informed that they could be offered a replacement exam if they wished to submit a Mitigating Circumstances Form following the error, and the candidate did not make this request. The Board was therefore not satisfied that the administrative error was sufficiently substantive to have accounted for the student's performance."



• For the reasons stated above, I requested that a proper investigation was carried out to allow the board to fairly consider my examination results.

389. KCL ‘A2 General Regulations for examinations’ section 13 deals with examination offences. S13.1 states that :



Students and staff of the College are required to abide by the relevant general and specific regulations governing examinations. Failure to observe any of the regulations will constitute an examination offence and will be dealt with in accordance with the Misconduct regulations.’ (See appendix - A2 General Regulations for examinations)



As staff failed to comply with any of the regulations in relation to my examination, I requesting a full and fair investigation so that the staff involved could be disciplined but the College did not respond.



390. Although the examination papers are computer marked via the optical scanner feeding a duplicate Paper 2 through the machine would have created an error and rejected my papers. As my name was on the papers this removed all unanimity from the papers and I was unfairly marked. (I refer to the letter dated 24 April 2009 from Anne Giwa-Amu to Derek Fullarton, marked exhibit 223a )

391. On 24 April 2009, my mother wrote to Derek Fullarton informing him that my injury that occurred on 20 October 2008 had left me disabled and the false statements submitted by Paul Fairweather in the College defence statement.

392. On 29 April 2009, North West Wales Trust confirmed my provisional offer of an F1 post in Bangor to commence on 4 August 2009 to 3 August 2010. The pay scale was £21,862. I did not choose this post and was disadvantaged by the change of my ranking mark (I refer to the letter from the North Wales Trust, dated 29 April 2009 referred to as exhibit 224). Due to the actions of my medical school, I lost the F1 post that I had secured (a preferable post). My medical school notified Cardiff University that I would not be able to commence my foundation training in Wales in August 2009. As a result my post was returned to the employing Trust to be advertised. The Wales Foundation School did not make an offer to reserve my place for August 2010. (I refer to the letter dated 17 July 2009 from Dr Tom Yapp (Associate Dean for Foundation School) pp S Edwards, Cardiff University, marked exhibit 225)

393. In a letter dated 11 May 2009, Anne Poulson (Director of Academic Services) informed me of her decision not to appoint an Appeal committee to consider my case. She referred me to the OIA. Although not marked as such, I believed this to be the College’s ‘Completion of Proceedings letter’ which now allowed me to progress my complaint to the OIA. (I refer to the letter dated 11 May 2009 from KCL, marked exhibit 226).

394. On 8 June 2009, I sent an email to Paul Fairweather requesting audio recording of the Appeal Committee but he failed to respond. (I refer to my email dated 8 June 2009 to Paul Fairweather, marked exhibit 227)

395. On 11 June 2009, Mr Barry Ferris MS FRCS (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon) confirmed his diagnosis and recommended surgery (closed arthroscopic lateral release) due to the injury sustained on 20 October 2008. (I refer to the letter dated 11 June 2009 from Mr Barry Ferris, marked exhibit 228). On 24 June 2009, my solicitor wrote:

‘As you are aware I had, in our letter of claim, requested copies of the CCTV footage of the Lonsdale ward reception area for the time of your accident. No copy of the CCTV footage has been provided and I have written to the NHS Litigation authority again requesting copies of that footage. I have been informed that they have written to the trust to establish whether the area is covered by CCTV coverage and they will endeavour to provide us with a copy of that footage should it be available.’

I have still not been provided with a copy of the CCTV footage covering the incident. (I refer to the letter dated 24 June 2009 from Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, marked exhibit 229)

396. On 29 June 2009 I wrote to the legal Compliance Officer at King’s giving notice that the MBBS 2008 final year examination question and answer papers were required for evidence at court together with the rotas of staff involved in the final year examinations. (I refer to letter dated 29 June 2009, from Virginia Jibowu to the Legal compliance Officer KCH, marked exhibit 230) On 31 June 2009, I also sent a letter to Berrymans Lace Mawer giving notice that the MBBS 2008 final year question and answer papers should not be destroyed (I refer to the letter from Virginia Jibowu (pp Anne Giwa-Amu) to Genevieve Rich of Berrymans Lace Mawer, dated 31 June 2009, marked exhibit 231).

397. On 30 June 2009, I wrote to Cardiff University to request an explanation as to why my marks awarded during the 2008 rounds were changed from 68 to 55. (I refer to letter from Virginia Jibowu to Cardiff University dated 30 June 2009, marked exhibit 232). On 25 August 2009, Cardiff University responded stating that:

‘Cardiff University does not hold information relating to the academic ranking or scoring of your 2008 application as this was conducted by your home medical school and the foundation school which you selected as your first choice…the academic ranking for your application was carried out by your home medical school…’ (I refer to the letter from Cardiff University to Virginia Jibowu, dated 25 August 2009, marked exhibit 233)

398. By letter dated 17 July 2009, I was informed by Cardiff University that they had been informed by my medical school that I would not be able to commence my foundation training in Wales, in August 2009 and as a result my post was returned to the employing Trust to be advertised. The Wales Foundation School was ‘unable to reserve a place within the Foundation Programme for [me] in 2010’, resulting my loss of employment. (I refer to the letter from Wales University to Virginia Jibowu, dated 17 July 2009, marked exhibit 225) This was a further act of victimisation by my university as students who did not make formal complaints were qualified and allowed to take up their posts.

399. In a letter dated 25 August 2009 from Cardiff University, I was informed that the academic ranking of my application was carried out by my ‘home medical school’. The question section of my application form for the 2009 programme was scored by the Wales Foundation School. In 2009 the Wales Foundation School matched applicants to posts commencing with the applicant with the highest score and continued through the list. As I did not rank my post at the Wales Foundation School my preferences could not be taken into account and I was randomly allocated a post (I refer to letter from Cardiff University to Virginia Jibowu, dated 25 August 2009, marked exhibit 233).

400. I appealed the decision and requested a review of the Academic registrar’s findings. I had not received a letter of completion and no investigation was conducted. The ‘investigation’ has been a complete sham and management even refused to inspect my examination papers nor investigate any other ‘procedural errors’ which affected me ( I refer to Student Complaint form 3 (SC3), from Virginia Jibowu to KCL, dated 5 September 2008, marked exhibit 233a).

401. In a letter dated 21 September 2009, the OIA confirmed its decision not to investigate my complaint partly on the basis that I had started proceedings against King’s College which had not been stayed. As King’s College had wasted over a year deciding not to investigate my complaint, I am not prepared to accept a further stay of proceedings. By failing to adhere to their time limits on investigating complaints, KCL have denied me the prospect of an external investigation by the OIA. The OIA do not act as a court and can not investigate complaints of a racial nature.

402. KCL management have developed a culture of victimisation which is known to students. Intimidation is used to deter students from making complaints. Students who have been subjected to discrimination, bullying and harassment at KCL have expressed their fear of the consequences of speaking out. The fear of victimisation prevents student’s from speaking out even after they have left the university as KCL are required to sign off the F1 doctors on completion of the pre-registration (F1) year of training.

403. I have been at King’s College for over 6 years, working with psychiatrists and consultants of various disciplines and no one has ever questioned my mental health. I was provided with references by senior lecturers that I had worked with. Their references were positive enough and allowed me to obtain an F1 post in Wales. The stigma of mental illness is a strong one and KCL management have stigmatised me when I do not have the illness. I have been publicly humiliated amongst my peer group by staff and ‘connected’ students who have circulated these malicious rumours about me. The actions of management, and named students, have caused me and my family a tremendous amount of distress. The humiliation and stress I and my family have been subjected to cannot be underestimated. These totalitarian tactics have been used against me by King’s College to ensure that my genuine and serious complaints are trivialised and ignored. This is a callous abuse of power by senior members of the management team.

404. The appeal outcome had been prejudged to my disadvantage, I believe that I did pass my exams, but I was failed due to racial discrimination and/or victimisation and/or harassment. If my appeal was upheld I should have been awarded my degree and been able to begin my Foundation year in 2009. Other students who have been racially discriminated against fear to come forward due to concerns about being victimised.

405. In January 2010, the Student Loan Company provided me with a statement. My balance was £30,753. (I refer to the Student Loans Company statement, dated January 2010, marked exhibit 234)

406. The actions of King’s College management have caused the loss of my degree and my F1 job. I have been subjected to undue hardship as I currently have no income and I am financially dependant on my mother. I have suffered immense pain from my injury and the orthopedic surgeon has suggested that I might need an operation (lateral release). If this fails I will need pain management for the rest of my life. I have been a virtual prisoner in my home for over a year as I cannot walk long distances or carry heavy bags of shopping. Due to the defamation by management and the associated students, I have suffered immense humiliation. My reputation amongst my peers has been irreparably damaged. My future job prospects have also been damaged by the defamatory remarks of management and the College’s refusal to award me my degree. As I am unable to get about normally my social life has been damaged. Due to the preparation for the ongoing case (currently as a litigant in person) and the College’s lengthy internal procedures process I have had little, if any leisure time.

407. My mother has also suffered great stress and hardship as a result of my injury and the treatment I have received from KCL students and management. She has suffered financial loss, as she has been forced to maintain me and pay for my medical and legal expenses. She has also been forced to care for me and accompany me when I go out. On numerous occasions she has been forced to ask my grandmother to come from Wales to assist her. (I refer to the witness statement of Anne Giwa-Amu (mother) marked exhibit 57, and Anne Giwa-Amu (grandmother) marked exhibit 95).

408. I reserve the right to amend this witness statement,





I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.





Signed Date



15 January 2010

…………………….. …………………..

Virginia Jibowu