Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

9and Mrs McKenzie attended, and who now lives in a remote and rural location in Zambia.It was the Registrant's position that it was a disproportionate expense to hear her evidenceby video link, and which could only be organised if she travelled to Lusaka some 12 hoursdistant. In these circumstances it was directed that efforts would be made to receive herevidence by Skype at the offices of Miss Vora's solicitor, but the connection did notsucceed. We heard her evidence via the telephone, as this seemed the next best possiblemethod in all the circumstances.We noted from the e-mail correspondence before us that the request made by Miss Vora at8.27 am on 17 April to Miss Valand set out Miss Vora's short version of events. We notedalso the further e-mail sent by Miss Vora at 8.58 on 18 April. In this she said:"Thank you for confirming I am innocent. My solicitor asked me if you would mindif I forwarded the e-mail to her. I think she needs you to confirm this matter. Yes itwas Mrs R and her friend, you have very good memory. I clearly remember tellingher that I put everything in the bag, including all the medicines and all the brokenpowder refills. As you know they were not prepared to listen and kept going on andon, and the shouting from both of them got louder and louder."At 10.11 am on 18 April 2012, Miss Valand replied:"Hi Miss Vora, Yes I also remember you telling her that you had put the medicineand the powder refills that she had broken all in her bag, but they kept still shoutingall sorts."We do not in this determination set out the longer e-mail and response. They are exhibitsin the case and can be considered Viewed as a whole, the e-mails strongly suggest that thewitness Miss Valand was content to adopt that which had been set out by Miss Vora in here-mail with little qualification. The eventual formal statement obtained by the Registrant'ssolicitor, Miss Honeyball, was short and to the point and along the same lines as the e-mailcommunication. Inevitably this raised the question as to how much of Miss Valand'sstatement was prompted by the e-mail sent and how much was her own recollection.The overall effect of Miss Valand's oral evidence was that, when Mrs R and MrsMcKenzie attended the shop on 14 July, they stood near to the door and both shouted forabout five minutes. Miss Vora was unable to describe what was said in any detail but,when asked questions by the Committee was able to recall some matters, that did notappear in her e-mails or statement, which suggested to us that she did have some realmemory. By way of example she did recall that what was being said by the two womenwas that medication had been withheld. She also recalled that one of the women had leftthe premises before the other.In cross-examination Miss Valand said that she could not remember Miss Vora using theword 'bitches'. In answer to Mr Millin, the effect of her evidence was that she agreed that itwas fair to say that this word may have been used; she could not remember it. Inre-examination, she said that, if the word had been used, she would have remembered it.