Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

Fair enough, is that a new thing?

Indeed. I also do not think you understand what contempt of court means.

Others have already answered more eloquently than in could but as you addressed this post to me I thought I’d do you the courtesy of replying.

I find your reply contradictory and patronising. Particularly this bit:

I do not think most of you understand the powers of Courts

I do not think you understand the knowledge of the posters on this board.

Slojelly is correct and as stated.

Have you all not noticed nobody who is legally qualified has come along and commented, for the reasons I have stated.

I was only trying to help.

Am not going to pick on anybody here or yawn at anybody.

YOU ARE A BUNCH OF ARGUMENTATIVE FUCKERS AND I LOVE YOU xxxxxxxxxxxx

I’ve gone into Teams on my work laptop and just spotted that, so thanks. I’ve only ever used them before in WebEx.

People supplied data that any reasonable person would expect to be kept private. I suspect the ICO would be interested.

In this case it would be the judicial data protection panel rather than the ICO as it concerns a tribunal order.

I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law

Without bogging you down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law, the judiciary are still bound by the law.

I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law that…

🥱

GDPR applies to Courts, just as the Equality Act applies and other laws too. Courts do have to abide by existing law, they can't just assert powers they don't legitimately hold, and can be challenged when they do.

Even if the existing law, or interpretation of the law, seems to allow this to happen, it does not follow that the interpretation is correct or that it cannot be challenged. This is why we have higher Courts and the Judicial Review process. Because Courts do get things wrong.

People supplied data that any reasonable person would expect to be kept private. I suspect the ICO would be interested.

With the greatest of respect to your academic studies and achievements @Karensalright there are actual qualified solicitors and barristers on this board. Ones who do this stuff as a day job.

If the judicial data protection panel uphold a complaint and it raises matters of serious concern “it will be referred to the Senior Presiding Judge or relevant Chambers President.”

@HornyHornersPinkyWinky Hiya

It is not a mindset, it is a legal fact. I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law that, Courts cannot be interfered with by any other wing (pillar) of the state.

I am not a lawyer but studied law and got a first. And I have continued my interest, in lots of ways and keep myself abreast to changes, decisions, through here and other places, as do some lawyers.

The only other possibility you all could have is to make an application to the High Court to rule the judges decision as somehow unlawful, good luck with that one, legally and financially.

I’m not aware of how you’d do that in Teams,

It's possible to create breakout rooms, so they should be able to do it individually.

If you read the link and/or extract posted by @Pyjamagame you'll see that's not true.

You can:

• request access to your personal data or ask for it to be corrected
• object to our processing of your personal data or ask for the processing to be restricted
• lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner (see below)

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving Hi

firstly any legally qualified person who has not registered to be a remote observer will have no idea what the order relates to or why you are all listed, so they will not be able to comment here.

Secondly any legally qualified remote observer will know what the order means and why you are all named on it, and they are not going to comment here either, in the event that any comment would be a contempt of said order.

I do not think most of you understand the powers of Courts.

I don't understand this mindset - surely people have a right to complain if they feel their data was incorrectly shared. Whether anything is done about it, who knows, but people can complain if they want to.

You need to re-read more carefully.

Sloejellys link is your only option. Having scan read it it does not seem to me to really be of much help other than to amend inaccuracies.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short time in the FWR board, telling us there is nothing we can do is akin to a challenge. There are lots of very knowledgeable women about and the tribunal threads usually attract those of a legal persuasion so hopefully one will be along who can shed a bit more light.

I’m intrigued on how the judge/clerks are going to do the ID verification on Teams to admit us as observers. On the software used previously, in the Phoenix hearing, the clerk pulled us into a private 1:1 chat to confirm our name and that we’d keep the camera off. I’m not aware of how you’d do that in Teams, so I’m mentally preparing myself for anyone that’s in the call to hear me and see me speak to confirm my name. I’m not sure what I’d say if they publicly asked for my location and occupation and email address and what I had for breakfast…

The above documents signposts to this which suggests a means by which you CAN raise a complaint about this:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Judicial-data-processing-complaints-handling-policy.pdf

Didn’t spot if this was already shared:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judiciary-and-data-protection-privacy-notice/

That's not correct. I can and shall decide who to complain to and when best to do so.

It is an outrageous thing to do. I see no good reason for the court to circulate this detailed information to other observers. They could have made an order and kept the names separate or included a bare list of names only with no other information. I've never seen anything like it.

@CriticalCondition see above there is nothing you can do.

I've just seen this. My name and location is on the list. And they've got the wrong reason for me wanting to attend remotely. I am 'out' but I am furious that they have been so cavalier with my personal information. There is no excuse or justification for it whatsoever. When I have calmed down I am going to decide what to do about it.

As you have all received a sealed order, pertaining to something between those receiving the order, It its impossible to comment, on how and why personal data was shared between parties.

Tribunals are a lower Court of Law under the Jurisdiction of the High Court.

As most of you will know in Meade it was clear that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the regulatory body Social Work England. (Who I suspect thought otherwise)

Likewise the ICO is a regulatory body and therefore subject to the Courts jurisdiction. So they have no authority and cannot intervene, or “be all over it”

The best way forward is to request a full explanation after the end of the hearing. As I am assuming any expansive response from a judge at this juncture may have an effect on the sealed order itself. But I do not know that, and none of us should speculate.

Orders from a tribunal usually expire after a judgement is issued.

Personally I would love to know if there were any surprises on the attendees list. But of course I cannot.