Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

Thanks DL. That's helpful re. how a chambers is structured. I didn't know that.

Absolutely this.

Having read some of the bundle now, I'm really, really looking forward to seeing Michelle Brewer on the stand.

By the way, he’s not an employee of GCC. A chambers is a group of self-employed individuals who group together to share admin and office costs, and (hopefully) the good name and reputation of the set of chambers. There is pressure because in the event of a successful claim that group of individuals will have to contribute to the damages in whatever proportions they have agreed, and their collective reputation may affect them as individuals, but it’s not quite the same as the boss pressuring an employee.

Lurking. May I ask a very basic question please?

Is the case that AB was discriminated purely for being GC?
Or is it that she was discriminated for being a woman and lesbian (which made her GC)?
I would have thought the former would be much easier to prove but from commentary I have the impression it is the latter??

I think he's very composed. He just doesn't want to answer the questions.

It looks to me like there are essentially 3 sets of page numbers: the original page numbering from before the front pages of indexing were added, the new page numbering after the index was added, and then the electronic page numbering (to be able to skip to the correct page) which doesn't match either.

Can they talk to him now to calm him down or is that not allowed and he just has 5 minutes to compose himself.

He will not be able to discuss the case or speak with the legal team whilst under oath.

Barristers are for the most part terrible witnesses, because they think they can see where it’s going and they want to be clever about it. From the cross-ex side it is a one-sided game of chess. You are trying to drive the narrative in the early stages so when it gets to the late part of cross-ex it is difficult for the witness to deny what you need them to admit (or if they do deny it for that not to be convincing). The mistake barristers make as witnesses is to think their participation makes it a two-sided game of chess. Your role as witness is to answer the questions honestly. Trying to craft a counter-narrative, see twenty questions ahead or argue with the premise of the question does not come off well.

I didn't like to speculate yesterday

I believe witnesses cannot talk to anyone while giving edivdence

Once again, from the Garden Court website testimonials:

Stephen has a calm, yet authoritative manner….He is a knowledgeable and confident advocate.

Hmm, lecturing is a good word for it.

Such confidence!

I am too generous. He's also under a huge amount of pressure from his employer as if the case is lost and his evidence swings that then it makes his position very difficult. But then he is a barrister.

Can they talk to him now to calm him down or is that not allowed and he just has 5 minutes to compose himself.

It does seen to me that Mr Lue would get a better handle on the question being asked if he focused 100% on listening to it rather than the need to write it down.

And yet RMW feels confident enough in RMW's skills to come on here and lecture us - but does not have the skills to prepare legal documents?

Yes, AH did say that, @Chrysanthemum5

'Maybe I'm being too generous by thinking he has a processing need for it. I wonder if he's like this in meetings though.'

He seems very able to process questions he doesn't mind answering.

This feels like SL is not giving evidence but sees his role here to argue against the validity of BC's questions. He's performing as a barrister rather than as a witness. I wonder whether then other GCC people giving evidence will do similar.

No it’s a fucking joke. ND or not, if he is unable to deal with really quite basic questions, I struggle to understand how he functions as a barrister in court.

Either the judge is firing questions at you, or the witness may give an answer you weren’t necessarily expecting. You have to be able to process a lot of information very quickly and react to it without losing your thread or letting important points go unchallenged.

Being cross-examined carries its own stresses but it is hugely less challenging than doing the cross-examining. It’s a ploy to buy time to think. He’s also trying to buy time every question by reading the document. I can guarantee you that he will have read and be familiar with every document which he sent, which was sent to him or in which he is mentioned - that is how barristers prepare to cross-examine others, so there is no way he hasn’t done that knowing he was to be cross-examined.

Did they say that RWM was responsible for the pagination of the documents?

It might be a reasonable adjustment. He did ask at the beginning if he could so it and she said yes. Maybe I'm being too generous by thinking he has a processing need for it. I wonder if he's like this in meetings though.

There was an estimate that his evidence would take an hour wasn't there? At this rate it will take at least double that I should think.

Justine McNally referred to by SL as a case handled at GCC which was not a civil case: metro.co.uk/2013/03/21/teenage-girl-who-posed-as-boy-for-sex-jailed-3554841/

I wonder how long the EJ is going to tolerate this time-wasting writing every simple question down.

I'm not logged in but I'm reading on here and tribunal tweets. It strikes me that it's just a game a patience!