Big update on Rape Crisis legal challenge

[IamSarah]

I know many of you have been waiting for an update so first of all thank you for your patience and the many messages of support.

I am suing Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service, as it refused to offer a single sex women’s group in addition to the mixed sex women’s groups. By mixed sex I mean inclusive of any males who identify as women.

I’ve been granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and it was submitted to Brighton County Court today.

I am being represented by law firm Didlaw and my Barrister is Naomi Cunningham (Chair of Sex Matters). So far they have acted pro bono which I am incredibly grateful for as it has taken a lot of time. The team are confident I have a good case but this is unchartered territory for women’s rights.

Many of you have very kindly offered to be involved and help with gardening. I don’t think I’m allowed to share details on here so please go to my Twitter page http://twitter.com/SarahSurviving/ which has all the info in a pinned post.

Of you’re not on Twitter feel free to send me a DM for more information on how you can help the case. Any publicity you can give the crowd funder would really help.

Thank you everyone.

Sarah x

I don't think speculation about the CEO's children is going to help Sarah's case at all.

Agreed Thelnebriati

I shouldn't have mentioned her child at all and feel v uncomfortable about speculation.

I was just trying to understand why she is so invested in trans inclusion and dismissive of women's needs.

I think it would be a good idea to report all those posts and ask MN to redact them.

Just wanted to send support @IamSarah I know women who are very caring and also strongly prioritise trans needs and they just don't see that as a problem for women. To me they are well meaning but mistaken.

As someone who has posted about this, I agree.

Like Sarah, I would really like to understand why the CEO takes the stand she does. But I agree that our speculation isn't helpful or appropriate.

I will report too.

I have watched with increasing amusement, the comments about my supposed involvement with the bundles in the Bailey case. Amusing, because it is an exercise in 'Groupthink' not having the slightest foundation. Long ago, on one of the Bailey threads, a contributor pointed out that barristers don't get involved in producing bundles but her accurate comment did not fit the narrative and so was ignored.

It hasn't been appropriate to comment until now but I received my client's permission to do so. I would respectfully suggest that those who have repeated this baseless canard think seriously about why they have done so - I have my views.

As it happens, you have quoted a useful part of the Bailey judgment. Paragraph 20 refers to the chronology that I produced after evidence closed which the tribunal did find of some small assistance.

TTFN

Robin White

Is posting here Robin White just letting Sarah know that you are able to post here, is that the point?

I mean, aren't you representing the people Sarah has a court case against?

And yet, you are here posting?

No. The only point is to correct an inaccuracy, which has been widely circulated on this site and repeated here, about the Bailey case.

And perhaps to suggest to some that repeating as fact things they actually have no knowledge of, has its downsides.

Are barristers allowed to post on support threads for the person they’ll be cross-examining?

It’s a very tasteless and creepy thing to do in these circumstances, regardless of whether professional ethics allow it.

You might consider it an ant of 'only point is to correct an inaccuracy' but I think your actions can be considered in other lights.

And perhaps to suggest to some that repeating as fact things they actually have no knowledge of, has its downsides.

Irony klaxon

It is quite handy to have a live demonstration of exactly why Sarah is doing this though. Inappropriate intrusion seems to be a staple for some people.

Boundaries don't seem to mean anything.

Although I do think this should be cached by someone more technically competent than me obviously

It hasn't been appropriate to comment until now

It's still utterly inappropriate.

Hope you're okay, OP.

We are all here for you. This is a support thread for OP.

Just a wee reminder to anyone trying to settle scores on here or insinuating themselves into a space that they're clearly not welcome in. FFS.

Enough to get the person in question removed from the case?

Hang in there, Sarah. All the amateur gardeners here are rooting for you.

I'd say it's arguably "discreditable conduct", against the Bar Standards Board rules?

Probably best not to speculate on Sarah's thread though.

I don't know, Toboggan. I find it astonishing that a solicitor has apparently asked and been granted permission to post this on Sarah's thread:

'I have watched with increasing amusement...'

but that's out of a general sense of moral propriety, not a legal one.

As a barrister you didn't produce the bundles. But as the legal representative of your client you are the one responsible for the bundles are you not?