Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

Distance shouldn’t be a factor. You could live in the next street over from the court and still not be able to attend in person due to disability, accessibility, carer responsibilities, juggling work/clients and observing etc etc.

none of the other observers needs to know that though.

I'd also want to them to explain how collecting occupations fits with

not collect information that is irrelevant or excessive

Location may be justifiable to collect if they need to judge whether distance from court is an allowable reason for not attending in persion. Although I think they're on dodgier ground justifying a need to share that data with anyone other than those making the admit/don't admit decision.

This seems to be the key bit

The information you give us will not usually be shared with anyone who is not a party to the case unless this is specifically ordered by the tribunal or permitted by the Tribunal Procedure Rules (“the Rules”)

That would not include observers.

Just reading around this a bit more.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privacy-notice-for-tribunal-forms/privacy-notice-for-tribunals-forms#about-personal-data

• 5. When we ask you for personal data we:promise to inform you why we need your personal data
• will ask only for the personal data we need and not collect information that is irrelevant or excessive
• will protect it and make sure no unauthorised person has access to it
• may share it with other organisations but only where necessary and permitted by the law (see below)
• will make sure we don’t keep it longer than is necessary

• 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)

1. Who the information may be shared withThe information you provide us will typically be shared with the other parties involved in the case, including their legal representatives.

• Section 108 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that a tribunalhearing must be heard in private where it is alleged that a document relied upon by a party to an appeal under section 82 is a forgery, and that disclosure to that party regarding the detection of the forgery would be contrary to public interest
• Rule 26(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Procedure Rules 2008 states that a First-tier Tribunal hearing must be heard in private if it involves special educational needs and disability discriminationin schools, unless the tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to be held in public. Under Rule 38, mental health cases in the First-tier Tribunal are also heard in private, unless the tribunal considers that it is in theinterests of justice for the hearing to be held in public
• Rule 30(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 states that a First-tier Tribunal hearing must be heard in private if it involves criminal injuries compensation, unless the appellant has consented to the hearing being held in public, and the tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to be held in public
• Rule 48(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 states that where the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal acts as an arbitrator in a reference by consent under section 1(5) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949, any hearing must be held in private unless the parties agree otherwise

Yes, this method has an obvious chilling effect. How many of us that have applied giving our specific identifying details will apply for another tribunal that requires the same?

I believe it is a clear violation of the law, sealed orders or not. The Information Commissioner should be all over this.

I'm a bit peeved, to be honest. I think I will be taking this up with them after the hearing is concluded. In my case I'm relatively happy that the persons named along with me are 'safe', but that is by the by. I have an unusual name and location and would be found on social media in an instant. I'm appalled on all your behalfs as well.

I find it unacceptable of the court to tell a load of strangers that a particular women has childcare issues i.e., in effect, 'she has young children' (or is responsible for young children), especially in a context like this.

I'd prefer to see 'Reasons for not attending in person: given and accepted' for that category, for any reasons given.

Court lists should [...] include enough information for individuals to make decisions about observation of court hearings

But surely that is about making it clear what case is being heard, where, and when (and possibly details of the professionals involved).

Nobody is going to make a decision to observe (or not) a case based on who else is (or isn't) watching. So sharing data on observers is not covered by the stated aim.

Also, if they're acting in a way likely to discourage attendance, and treating in-person and online observers differently and those 2 groups are likely to differ in respect of protected charateristics (and the reasons given for requesting access suggest they do), they surely risk straying into indirect discrimination as well as being on dodgy data-protection ground.

I would argue that this approach discourages "Open Justice" - will those who have had such details shared without their consent want to view tribunals in future, or will they stay away? Is that the intention with this action?

This is terrible for disabled people who are physically unable to attend in person. Why should those people have their details shared when non-disabled people able to attend in person do not? (I find myself questioning whether this meets the threshold for indirect discrimination under EA2010 as those unable to attend in person are disproportionately likely to be disabled...)

It clearly says access will be granted by order of the judge, and I wouldn’t necessarily have an issue with the order just naming me, but specifying occupations and locations I think are unnecessary. Plus the carelessness with distributing the orders by email. Those are the two things I have issue with.

And I don’t expect the legal team to talk to us now, I meant after the case has been heard.

Thanks Ickky

Those of you who are complaining, who are you emailing your complaint to?

If this is the price to pay to watch Ben annihilate Stonewall then so be it.

I'm shocked that peoples names and details have been sent to all. That is not on.

(For once I'm glad I've been lazy and not got around to applying to watch this)

I've been looking at definitions of 'Open Justice', and found this in a paper by justice.org.uk
With respect to engagement with individual proceedings, we have concluded that: a) Court lists should be more accessible and easier to navigate online. They should include enough information for individuals to make decisions about observation of court hearings, whilst not sharing a disproportionate amount of personal information
Open-Justice-Consultation-Response-September-2023.pdf
Of course that extract, and the bit I've underlined, might have a meaning that differs from face value, I don't have any legal expertise.

However, this from the same paper seems pretty clear to me, and sharing IDs without consent sounds like it is the opposite of facilitating scrutiny, in fact the words 'chilling effect' spring to mind:
open justice has three clear purposes: it preserves the legitimacy of the justice system in the eyes of the public; it facilitates scrutiny of the justice system and the actors involved in it; and it increases the accessibility of the law itself.

I’m glad you got access but it still seems wrong you got a sealed court order that was not relevant to you.

I know Allison has rather more significant things on her plate right now, but do you think anyone from her legal team could explain things to us non-lawyers that makes sense as to why this is ok?

i don’t mean the blessed Ben who I expect will be limbering up and gargling honey and lemon, but the solicitor team.

I'd like to know that, as well.

I'm hoping it is addressed tomorrow.

Imagine sitting in a court room as an observer and the court clerk intoning, 'and in Row 5, seat B of the public gallery, we have Spin City Blue who works at the local university, and has young children. On her left is Nora Goggins, a social worker from Brighton, with disabilities ...'

I wonder exactly what the Judge was told by admin about the queries / complaints coming in, and if he really knows the actual full detail of what's happened and been shared, as opposed to a scant version of it?