Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal
select the video and mic that are not crossed out, this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 1 👇

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Speaking up for SL, some of the questions can have a compound nature with sub-answers being: yes, no, it depends, and I don't know, and it's easy to give an answer that is incorrect or imprecise by trying to provide an overall answer.

I actually think some of BC's questions are complex and in SL's position I'd do much the same.

I couldn't open it all day yesterday. Today I've downloaded Chrome and it's opened fine.

Hello everyone, I've just joined after several days' lurking!

Gosh, I don't know how BC hasn't lost his temper with this prevaricating slimeball.

I've not even seen an eye-roll from Ben.

I'm not logged in but I'm reading on here and tribunal tweets. It strikes me that it's just a game a patience!

I wonder how long the EJ is going to tolerate this time-wasting writing every simple question down.

Justine McNally referred to by SL as a case handled at GCC which was not a civil case: metro.co.uk/2013/03/21/teenage-girl-who-posed-as-boy-for-sex-jailed-3554841/

There was an estimate that his evidence would take an hour wasn't there? At this rate it will take at least double that I should think.

It might be a reasonable adjustment. He did ask at the beginning if he could so it and she said yes. Maybe I'm being too generous by thinking he has a processing need for it. I wonder if he's like this in meetings though.

Did they say that RWM was responsible for the pagination of the documents?

No it’s a fucking joke. ND or not, if he is unable to deal with really quite basic questions, I struggle to understand how he functions as a barrister in court.

Either the judge is firing questions at you, or the witness may give an answer you weren’t necessarily expecting. You have to be able to process a lot of information very quickly and react to it without losing your thread or letting important points go unchallenged.

Being cross-examined carries its own stresses but it is hugely less challenging than doing the cross-examining. It’s a ploy to buy time to think. He’s also trying to buy time every question by reading the document. I can guarantee you that he will have read and be familiar with every document which he sent, which was sent to him or in which he is mentioned - that is how barristers prepare to cross-examine others, so there is no way he hasn’t done that knowing he was to be cross-examined.

This feels like SL is not giving evidence but sees his role here to argue against the validity of BC's questions. He's performing as a barrister rather than as a witness. I wonder whether then other GCC people giving evidence will do similar.

'Maybe I'm being too generous by thinking he has a processing need for it. I wonder if he's like this in meetings though.'

He seems very able to process questions he doesn't mind answering.

Yes, AH did say that, @Chrysanthemum5

And yet RMW feels confident enough in RMW's skills to come on here and lecture us - but does not have the skills to prepare legal documents?

It does seen to me that Mr Lue would get a better handle on the question being asked if he focused 100% on listening to it rather than the need to write it down.

I am too generous. He's also under a huge amount of pressure from his employer as if the case is lost and his evidence swings that then it makes his position very difficult. But then he is a barrister.

Can they talk to him now to calm him down or is that not allowed and he just has 5 minutes to compose himself.

Hmm, lecturing is a good word for it.

Such confidence!

Once again, from the Garden Court website testimonials:

Stephen has a calm, yet authoritative manner….He is a knowledgeable and confident advocate.

I believe witnesses cannot talk to anyone while giving edivdence

I didn't like to speculate yesterday

Barristers are for the most part terrible witnesses, because they think they can see where it’s going and they want to be clever about it. From the cross-ex side it is a one-sided game of chess. You are trying to drive the narrative in the early stages so when it gets to the late part of cross-ex it is difficult for the witness to deny what you need them to admit (or if they do deny it for that not to be convincing). The mistake barristers make as witnesses is to think their participation makes it a two-sided game of chess. Your role as witness is to answer the questions honestly. Trying to craft a counter-narrative, see twenty questions ahead or argue with the premise of the question does not come off well.

Can they talk to him now to calm him down or is that not allowed and he just has 5 minutes to compose himself.

He will not be able to discuss the case or speak with the legal team whilst under oath.

It looks to me like there are essentially 3 sets of page numbers: the original page numbering from before the front pages of indexing were added, the new page numbering after the index was added, and then the electronic page numbering (to be able to skip to the correct page) which doesn't match either.

I think he's very composed. He just doesn't want to answer the questions.