Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 3

[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

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), 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)

Thread 1
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Do you think there'll be a big Eastenders style reveal this afternoon:
'You're not my mother!'
'Yes I am'

I'm not following all this very closely, but I'm quite concerned about the undisclosed emotional support person who apparently didn't want to appear on camera.

Does anyone remember the domestic violence trial in America where it became clear that the perpetrator was in the same room/house as one of the witnesses and was intimidating her?

Given that Stonewall's defence seems to be that their Head of Trans Inclusion went rogue, it appears to me that they would have an incentive to keep their Head of Trans Inclusion on the correct path when giving evidence.

It's pretty unlikely that that is what occurred, but the lack of proper process and the last minute reshuffle when asked to appear on camera is a bit iffy really.

The stonewall legal team are in the wrong for not agreeing it with the tribunal before hand. From the tweeting the lawyer sounded surprised that they would all need to be in shot.

I agree it's odd that no one mentioned the solicitor until they had to be in shot. But what would be the point of pretending the solicitor wasn't there when clearly it's allowed?

Look at the first and second paragraphs of the second page of this document SenselessUbiquity:

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PH-Bundle-pp-331-2-Stonewall-Complaint.pdf

I'm not following all this very closely, but I'm quite concerned about the undisclosed emotional support person who apparently didn't want to appear on camera.

Me too. Why did they imagine they wouldn't have to be?

Thanks all for this. Fascinating stuff

Though it sounds like a farce crossed with a circus because of he 3 extra people and the dog all spriung on the court at the last minute, giving evidence is different to doing your day job. Just because you need a supporter at big events doesn't mean you need one at the job you are familiar with. I would guess.

This morning's session seems to be sliding into the world of Gilbert and Sullivan:

Says the Head of Trans Inclusion - 'and so say his sisters and his cousins and his aunts'.

Did G and S do one set in a court?

Feng shui is an ART, you bigot!

You can't just throw a lot of people and a dog in front of a camera and expect positive chi!

Yes, Trial By Jury (about break of promise to marry I think)

But what would be the point of pretending the solicitor wasn't there when clearly it's allowed?

I was wondering if the "emotional support person" was actually legally trained and there to keep the witness on track. And then once it was clear they had to be in shot, the team realised that "emotional support solicitor" is a tough sell and changed the story. But it's a bit fishy either way!

The stonewall legal team are in the wrong for not agreeing it with the tribunal before hand. From the tweeting the lawyer sounded surprised that they would all need to be in shot.

This is what I can't get my head round, IO is a Barrister ffs, they should damn well know this (and I bet they do) just because the hearing/witnesses are remote that doesn't change the core principles of the Court procedure regarding the necessity for people to be seen.

I am well aware that there are cases where witnesses are hidden from full view of the public in Court, or their names, etc., not released to the general public bit this is not one of those cases and IO damn well knows that.

I'm shocked that the solicitor was prepared to collude in this deception.

Seems very unprofessional;to me.

Thanks @nauticant

Please could someone PM me with a link to the online access? I have emailed as per op and received an email with pin etc from the court but under 'web browser' and 'guest page' it just says 'click here'.... in text (not a link). I've not logged on before. Thanks!

I suspect (going from the witness statement) that KM is just very emotionally needy and there's nothing nefarious going on. The EJ seems to have seen it all before. But still outrageous.

(Not to deflect from this interesting thread but this article is a good summary of the religion of trans...www.broadsheet.ie/2022/04/26/colette-colfer-a-new-religion/ )

So, Stewart March writes to KM's manager and talks about redactions which he justified by referring to people not being harassed.

In the email, there seems to be an implied unfavourable outcome if the recipient doesn't carry out the orders comply with the sender's 'appeal'.

BC on email: Redacted bits include parts which say GC has always been ally to SW and trans. In order for GC to continue association I trust you will do what is right.

I wonder if they redacted that bit because it could possibly be interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as it suggests some (unwritten) implied threat (or harassment) towards the recipient in the event of non-compliance?

It may be terribly ungenerous, but my personal reaction is that it seems a kind of just right side of denial plausibility of 'you'll get yours Jimmy' if you don't do as you're told requested.

Read Nauticant's linked email, everyone. Are we allowed to distribute it further, Nauticant? I'd like to Tweet it.

Haha. The ESP was definitely described as friend several times by IO. That would be a big stretch to say a solicitor was a friend.

Just click where it says Click Here. Make sure your camera and microphone are set to 'None'. I always keep a piece of masking tape over mine, having seen people sitting eating their breakfast and fiddling with their flies during Maya's case. Then click here again, put in your PIN and connect. You'll get the black court screen and warning. The only other option is to wait several hours while we assemble an emotional technical support team for you.

Allison put that email in the public domain a couple of months ago, redacting the name of sender and recipients.

I have a question about timelines, sorry for being confused here. Was it apparent that there might be some possibility of legal action from AB before GCC wrote to Stonewall discontinuing the relationship?

SchadenfreudePersonified**

Is there another witness after this today?