Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

I'm deep down the rabbit hole now on the ico.org.uk website. According to the lawful basis page, 'consent must always be specific and informed.'

I just sent a bog-standard email with the info required, which I understood to be necessary in order to potentially access remote observation.

I didn't expect any of that information to be shared or used for anything other than reasons of accountability.

I thought that too.

Is the court exempt from following the GDPR requirements then? Doesn't the GDPR require that when you share someone's data you inform them of that and get their permission to share?

@MarieDeGournay

No. It doesn't feel right.

And we then get an email re access from a court official with He/Him set out at the very top of his email address. That seems inappropriate given the subject of this case.

the judge 'states there has been no data breach as the principle of open justice applies to the Tribunal’s orders.'.
That doesn't make sense to me - 'open justice' may require that all the parties to the case are identified, but surely not members of the public? especially if attendees in person are not identified.
One of the underlying principles of data protection is that the bare minimum of data should be gathered, and used only for necessary, specific and named purposes.

It just doesn't feel right at all. I'd feel very unsettled if it happened to me.

You certainly don't have to let everyone else attending know your personal details.

No, not to observe. It's a case of going through the metal detector at security, very like airport security, then you look at the court listings that are displayed on the wall(s), and head into your court. Usually a court clerk is available to give directions if you're lost or answer queries.

You go into the court and find a seat in the public observers' section.

I've never been asked to show ID, in any capacity.

Yes I’ve received a similar response from He/Him/His

Update:

I've received a response. I'm one of a few other remote access/out of jurisdiction requests to have been granted access and have now received the sealed orders pertaining to me and the others in my situation.

Out of interest, the clerk writes the judge 'states there has been no data breach as the principle of open justice applies to the Tribunal’s orders.'. I guess those of you who have queried GDPR will receive a similar response.

No you don't.

Starts at 10.30am tomorrow

Do we know what time it starts tomorrow? I'm hoping to check in here for updates.

*fooling = googling

I've already been doxxed (not via Mumsnet) and dragged through a transphobia complaint so I feel pretty blasé about this all now. Bring it on. Out and proud. Plus anyone fooling my socials might come to the conclusion that I'm supporting Stonewall anyway.

Just got the teams link and the sealed order. Good job I don't mind my name being there first all to see.

So if we didn't receive the list then that means we didn't make the cut?

I sent a request last week and got the automatic reply but haven't heard anything since.

Did only 46 people get access?

You could be viewing as an interest in either side. It doesn't automatically follow that everyone on that list is a nasty terf. I think we are extra vigilant because we are aware of past TRA tactics but there's nothing that could get you into trouble. Unless you're supposed to be working and worried that your employer will see you're not, that sort of thing.

Yes, but as we know it's been sent to at least one person inappropriately, we don't currently know who else has it and what their intentions are.

Plus, we have no idea if the other people named in the order are GC like us, TRAs or just neutral observers.

It's a sealed order, so the sharing of it is prohibited. It should not be found anywhere online.

Maybe not, but I shouldn't think the "Right Side of History" crowd are bothered about such niceties. We wouldn't be funding and observing tribunals if TRAs and their allies had observed the law...

Thanks, GTITC
But is everybody on the list getting details of everybody else on the list? Isn't that the court sharing details? Details which I don't see why it needed to take in the first place.

It's a sealed order, so the sharing of it is prohibited. It should not be found anywhere online.

I'm getting my 'I ❤️ Ben' banner ready as we speak.