Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 4

[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)

Witness Statement of Allison Bailey: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

Kirrin Medcalf's complaint to GCC: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PH-Bundle-pp-331-2-Stonewall-Complaint.pdf

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

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3?

The relevance of the LGB Alliance was a line of argument that, just as she was involved in setting up an interest group that had nothing to do with her work, so too could other chambers members, and this applies to her colleagues involved in the trans right groups that AB argues were connected with GCC/her treatment.

AH testifying: ‘which he [KM] clearly males on behalf of Stonewall.’

I’m not complaining.

An eejit logged into the hearing as Robin Whyte (he/him), IO asked for them to be dealt with. EJ asked them to leave and log back in with an approp name, MR disconnected them.

AB asked EJ to take into account certain people or groups would like to disrupt the hearing.

Makes!

AH is pronouncing Kirren as "Keiran". Of course, I hadn't seen it as a variant of that name.

Also, didn't AH just confirm that the KM complaint was sent "on behalf of Stonewall"?

MR using a 'take no prisoners' approach with ejecting people - which i agree with.

I cringe when i see those inflammatory screen names.

I know i'm horribly biased, but i can't imagine those are GC people. I reckon they're just the run of the mill trolls/TRAs.

"Now this is a question that you are perfectly capable of answering".

😡

tabbycatstripy
SenselessUbiquity
nauticant
Pyjamagame

Interesting points, thank you!

AH I don't want any further interruptions 😡

Yes, they’re TRA trolls trying to get the hearing to go to private. EJ is resisting this very well.

God he's so rude, it almost feels like bullying.

I am so inspired by Allison. I wish I'd taken law at university and could be as articulate as her!

I’m reading, not watching, but my gosh, AH is coming across as, well, I’m struggling to find an adequate description.

If I were Alison, I would not be as cool and calm as she appears.

AH - focus very carefully on the words
AB - what para
AH - are you there, I don't want any further interruption.
AB - please don't misrepresent me. Trying to find it
AH - I am going to read it very slowly

Thanks for your post @Simonedinovoir explaining who said what in that exchange. Quite illuminating, in terms of what Allison's still having to endure. I imagine she's been patronised all her life.

I'm watching DBW, and she is so calm. I'm angrier than she is!

Sorry what is TWG?

Why do QCs dislike it when the person they're questioning gives a detailed answer? I'd understand if they're waffling on about irrelevant stuff, but I've seen it a few times in cases I've followed, they don't seem to like the person elaborating.

I've been cross-examined in court (complainant in CSA case) and the barrister made such an appallingly shit and illogical point that I argued back and demolished it. Quite briefly but it was very clear that that was NOT what I was expected to do, I was meant to stick to yes or no or very factual direct answers. Everyone in court looked gobsmacked, especially the barrister.

The judge told me to keep answers short and to the point, however he also didn't interrupt, and let me finish, so I think he was rooting for me. But it made me see how barristers can use underhand methods – they can put you in a position where you have to say yes or no to a manipulative question that forces you to say something you don't want to and that isn't the reality, IYSWIM.

Trans Working Group.

thanks @Ameanstreakamilewide

Your barrister puts the legal artguments and the witness answers questions. Not surprisingly some witnesses if they are one of the parties to the case often want to put the legal arguments and that is not what being a witness is. If you want to argue the law and the whole case then that person would need to be a litigant in person or else trust their lawyers to do that.

The lawyers keep trying to shut the witnesses up in the Depp v heard case too because sometimes the witnesses want to go on about irrelevant points or whatever. it is quite interesting to watch it all.

Common law (UK, US etc) is one of the most expensive systems in the world as we have so much deatl with in court paying all those people but it does mean we often get to the truth better than systems which are handled more on paper in civil jurisdictions.

I think Allison is getting flustered. I still think she's doing brilliantly.

God he is so rude and patronising. Allison is totally unflappable though. Whoever said this really shows up the power dynamics of who can bring a case to court was spot on.

IO/RW camera has been frozen since we came back from break. Someone has (possibly unwisely!) pointed it out in chat but nothing has been acknowledged. I thought it had been decided that it was important for all participants to be visible to observers, as they would be in a physical court room?

That's for witnesses, who shouldn't generally have anyone off camera in the room.

The worry would be that they've lost connection.
But they are still listing page numbers so they are still there.