Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

Ms Stephanie Harrison, QC, Ms Michelle Brewer and Ms Claire McCann for the claimant;

I assume that would be Michelle Brewer of Garden Court Chambers who gave evidence against Allison Bailey that many struggled to believe. IIRC, it was also Michelle Brewer who had the bincident while conspiring on the phone as she was driving her car.

@SpinCityBlue thanks for the info.

The Office for Statistics Regulation earlier this year published good practice guidance on data collection etc.

I would like this to be compulsory so that all public sector organisations record sex registered at birth, legal sex and then gender as 3 distinct categories. The latter to have a “I do not have a gender identity” option.

I know it’s first thing Monday but no email yet.

I suspect it's a matter of making it upas they go along, to be honest. It seemed like a good idea to allow remote access, but then the practicalities of that presented themselves with people misbehaving or not understanding how to behave. They are being reactive, rather than proactive. I don't blame them tightening up, it was a bit of a circus last time. But of course, would like them to appreciate how SPECIAL I am 😜and allow me access.

Interesting, thanks.

That Times article is archived on archive dot ph. Here's an excerpt:

Judgment: November 1, 2017

It was a serious infringement of the right to privacy of transgender persons that the Department for Work and Pensions retained sensitive information about their gender history on its database. However, that interference was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate objectives of calculating entitlement to state benefits and identifying and detecting benefit fraud.

The Supreme Court so held, dismissing the appeal of C, from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Elias, Lord Justice Patten and Lady Justice Black) ([2016] PTSR 1344) of C’s appeal from the refusal by Mr Justice Simon ([2014] EWHC 2403 (Admin)) of C’s application for judicial review of a decision of the secretary of state for work and pensions not to remove information about C’s gender change and historical gender data about transgender customers from the database of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Ms Stephanie Harrison, QC, Ms Michelle Brewer and Ms Claire McCann for the claimant; Mr Charles Bourne, QC, Ms Heather Emmerson and Mr Rupert Paines for the secretary of state. The Equality Network intervened by written submissions only.

I think many Unions and other organisations have yet to catch up.

I can kind of understand the jurisdiction thing, it could potentially be used to get around the rules relating to not publishing what's been said without the court's permission (e.g. Tribunal Tweets being allowed to live tweet). But still, it would be easy enough to require observers to be bound by the law of England and Wales, surely?

The open justice concept seems to be a bit murkier than you'd hope/expect. I wonder if those involved don't like it and therefore there are ways being found to obstruct it?

It's not very Open Justice-y, is it??

It just sounds like an excuse to me. They seem to be unnecessarily picky.
Which rankles, because i'm assuming it's never been an issue before?

I think they might have written some regulations after the last hearings in 2023. The regulations sent to me were dated 2023.

That's me, and yes, I do live outside the UK. No one questioned location last time.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving does that person live outside the UK?

I can't think why else their request would be rejected, on those grounds.

I do hope so. I know a few women who have been engaged in a bit of back and forth with the clerk regarding some of the questions, I suspect the people who sent an initial request with all the required information are the ones who have only had the auto-response - fingers crossed.

Only one person has said they have heard one way or another and is because they have been immediately rejected due to their location. I’m sure in previous hearings I’ve heard nothing apart from the auto reply and then an email with the deals. So this silence feels entirely consistent so far. Especially if, as Allison previously said, there is still a degree of uncertainty on whether there will be any online observation at all.

Allison sent out another email last night regarding the particular points of law that will be the subject of the hearing. I see she’s posted it also on X, hopefully this link will work: https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1789741069007036631

I haven't had anything back but the standard auto-response. Still hopeful we may hear something today, but yes, the radio silence feels like it's not exactly in the spirit of Open Justice.

Ignore that, I'm getting my tribunals mixed up 🤦‍♀️

ABs starts on Tuesday so hopefully we will get something tomorrow.

Also still had nothing, but tomorrow is a reading day so hopefully those who have requested links will get instructions tomorrow.

I do wonder if there are issues emerging (in general) with court proceedings being recorded illegally. (Absolute guess but I bet it happens).

I've also had nothing apart from the auto reply.

Apart from the auto reply, I didn't get a reply to my email.

Has anyone else had a response, either yay or nay? I’ve had nowt 😡

Will be logging in here and also following along with TT on twitter.

Well, my request email has been turned down, as I am out of the jurisdiction. I've made further submissions and await the response. Not hopeful that my request will succeed. Pretty fed up as have followed all previous proceedings. Grrrr.

Yes, it has all the hallmarks of a specialised set up that links to equipment installed in the courts. That is also probably really expensive and reliant on the supplier to maintain and update. And “under the hood” is actually no better than zoom or Skype or Teams or WebEx. And will limp on for years because there is no money to upgrade any of it to keep up with improvements in technology.

I doubt they'd be allowed to use Zoom. I'm in the NHS and we can't use it. There's a whole industry around information governance in the public sector and I expect they can only use approved software.

Maybe I need to chat to the clerks about zoom hosting in all its glory?

Probably not a bad idea. I expect they have non-specialists who scrambled to come up with something in Covid and haven’t had time to go back and assess it since,

I've been pondering my irritation that this is feeling awkward to access.

Yes there absolutely should be open justice but the system hasn't kept up with the advent of zoom. I'm not in the slightest bit close to the background, but it feels like it hasn't been clearly defined what it's reasonable to expect and then to deliver against it.

The reason I say this, not to defend them, but simply because if you can attend in person then the objective of open justice IS being met in the same way it always has.

Anyway, largely irrelevant musings, but it feels like there needs to be a better structure. Simply blaming overworked clerks isn't sufficient, IMHO. Either zoom should be open to all, or not.

I applied and got the automated email so I’m not hopeful of getting access.