Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

I have to give evidence quite often professionally, and there's definitely an art to being cross-examined. The key errors the CGD lot are making is 1. being incapable of thinking outside their little bubble, and hence unable to anticipate how their evidence is going to look under cross-examination; and 2. being in the habit of assuming they are the smartest people in the room in any given situation and that listeners will take their pronouncements at face value. Plus the obvious and deal-breaking disadvantage that they actually do have something to hide.

If you're being cross-examined you should start from the assumption that the barrister is at least as clever as you and probably more so. Sometimes that will turn out not to be the case, and actually being cross-examined by a not-very-good barrister is in some ways harder than a skilled one, because you're frantically trying to work out where they're going with their questions, and worrying that there's a glaring denouement coming that you have somehow failed to anticipate, only to find that it all fizzles out without ever coming to a point.

But the combination of being in front of an incredibly skilled barrister and having something you need to conceal is truly the stuff of nightmares.

When they were considering reputational risks originally or more recently when they decided to proceed after the successful appeal of ET1, do you think CGD even this on the horizon scanning of risks to be managed: "Court room drama animations of part of the tribunal exchanges will be made on social media and draw in people who would otherwise not know anything about us.

No. My money's on LE, AM, MP and EM all taking the line that the worst that could happen was that Maya would take them to an employment tribunal, which she probably wouldn't because of the risk it would be to her reputation and career. And even if she did, an EA's nothing to worry about and they'd expect to win on the basis that she wasn't an employee.

Those animations are amazing!

Twitter is flagging these as sensitive content!! 😂😂😂 Oh the poor petal TRAs!!!

[quote WinterTrees]I saw this addition this morning. I'm sure the anime-loving TRAs are enjoying it too

twitter.com/pitopishi/status/1504999134067326987[/quote]
We need to see the corpse exchange in the style of Burton's Corpse Bride.

[quote WinterTrees]Just seen this on twitter, so will leave it here to fill the gap until the feature film (starring Damian Lewis) comes out.

twitter.com/JoelSnape/status/1504841205678542855[/quote]
I wish that I could feel the tiniest bit sorry for CGD but this is outstanding.

When they were considering reputational risks originally or more recently when they decided to proceed after the successful appeal of ET1, do you think CGD even this on the horizon scanning of risks to be managed: "Court room drama animations of part of the tribunal exchanges will be made on social media and draw in people who would otherwise not know anything about us.

Hahahaa

I saw this addition this morning. I'm sure the anime-loving TRAs are enjoying it too

twitter.com/pitopishi/status/1504999134067326987

[quote nauticant]25 April, unless it's moved:

allisonbailey.co.uk/updates/update-7-preliminary-hearing-12th-october-2021/[/quote]
I went to put a reminder in my calendar, only to find I’d already made one. 😂

Forgot to say, thanks WinterTrees for the heads up 👍

That Joel Snape animation thread is hilarious

One more question I have - are employment tribunals usually as exciting as this?

Two things that really bring legal proceedings to life as a spectator: knowing a bit about the background of the case/the questions at issue and feeling you have a personal stake in the outcome, even if that's just wanting to see justice done.

This was a story a while back: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-54987822 and I was disappointed to see quite a number of people go out of their way to sneer and the "pointlessness" of it.

I’m never going to hear the phrase “Think Tank” in the same way again, that’s for sure.

[quote WinterTrees]Just seen this on twitter, so will leave it here to fill the gap until the feature film (starring Damian Lewis) comes out.

twitter.com/JoelSnape/status/1504841205678542855[/quote]

If you can, keep an eye on this account and follow the links. I've just watched 3 different animations of parts of the ET and they are glorious!

I caught up with the thread late last night, finally. Thank you to all the transcribers and posters for making this key archive spring into existence along with Tribunal Tweets.

One more question I have - are employment tribunals usually as exciting as this?

I've said before I sit on panels for professional regulation, so similar but not different. But, yes, watching a skilled barrister unpick a witness is an absolute delight. It reminds me a bit of how much I enjoyed watching blacksmiths or woodturners at country fairs as a kid - just the joy of watching the craftsmanship unfold. It is genuinely fascinating to watch.

And you never know when either a witness is going to say something unexpected, or the barrister is going to put their foot in it. The outcome is never certain.

25 April, unless it's moved:

allisonbailey.co.uk/updates/update-7-preliminary-hearing-12th-october-2021/

I think things are changing - albeit rather slowly. Thread in AIBU this morning about the swimming.

Vast majority of posts/posters are appalled by this.

BC will be grilling Stonewall and Garden Court for Alisson Bailey and later the Open University for Jo Phoenix and I'm planning ahead to make time to watch

FWRs everywhere will be planning their schedules around these cases. It's like a news service for us. I can't believe more people don't understand the implications for their own workplaces and employment conditions and the social principles under which they want to live.

@GreenUp
JR are much more technical. You are arguing that a public body failed to apply the law in a reasonable or proportionate way. It turns on things like decision making processes and how discretion was exercised etc.
So you might get an argument about an authority effectively operating a blanket rule when they should have been acting on a case by case basis.
It’s really important but not as easy to follow.

Thank-you @GreenUp

GreenUp

So you can end up with witnesses who can all basically blame someone who cant be cross examined?

And the judge will draw conclusions based on their deliberate absence?

twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1504462203793072136?s=20&t=stnMqlXnuZ5-HFchJIOR-g

For people not on twitter, legalfeminist tweeted that:

Each party decides which witnesses it will call. @CGDev must have thought that the witnesses it has decided to call would be able to put their case in its best light.

If someone who seems to have had a key role in a particular case isn't called, it's open to the tribunal to draw inferences from the fact that that party has chosen not to call them.

So each party has a tactical judgement to make: (a) how much damage will this witness will do to our case if we call them? (b) how much damage will not calling this witness do to our case? (c) which of (a) and (b) is worse?

Litigants often think that their witnesses will help them win their case: so they sometimes think more witnesses means a stronger case. Claimants will sometimes say "It's not fair - it's just me against 5 witnesses from my employer."

This is a mistake.

Witnesses far more often lose cases than win them.

Which is to say, if the case tips decisively one way or another in the course of oral evidence, that's much more often because a witness comes badly unstuck in cross-examination than because their oral evidence is particularly compelling.

These are general observations.

But one way of looking at witnesses - still speaking generally - is that each witness you call gives counsel on the other side another mouse to play with.