Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 14

[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 please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

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, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - 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

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

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Thread 9 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553181-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-9

Thread 10 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553754-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-10

Thread 11 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555145-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-11

Thread 12 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555687-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-12

Thread 13 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556235-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-13

Allison Bailey - claimant (4-9, 11-13 May)

Witnesses for the claimant:

Dr Nicola Williams - Fair Play for Women (29 April)
Dr Judith Green - A Woman's Place (29 April)
Kate Barker - LGB Alliance (3 May)
Lisa-Marie Taylor - FiLiA (4 May)

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC (3-4 May)
Zainab Al-Farabi - ex Stonewall (10 May)
Kirrin Medcalf - head of trans inclusion Stonewall (10 May)
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC (13 May)
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall (16 May)
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG (16 May)
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers (16-17 May)
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC (17-18 May)
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC (18 May)
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC (19-20 May)
Charlie Tennent - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Luke Harvey - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Louise Hooper - Barrister at GCC (20 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Katherine McGahy - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - clerk at GCC (24 May
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to concluded on 25th May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC

To come:

Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers

Can't decide if she's more like Aunt Lydia or Serena from Handmaid's Tale?

Discussion of her relationship with Stonewall. MB trying to remember how it all came about.

Damn, that's probably what I'll miss..thank goodness for the thread so I can catch up later.

She's trying to put a spin on every answer which drags it out. I think Ben should say he'll put his hand up when he has his answer and she should stop, ready for next question.

Think judges have got what they need from her answers to. Just need to make it snappier.

This is the judgement they're referring to:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html

Relevant stats provided by the MoJ:
What can be said, however, is that data collected across the prison estate in March/April 2019 recorded the following:
i) There were 163 transgender prisoners, of whom 81 had been convicted of one or more sexual offences.

ii) 129 of those prisoners were allocated to the male estate, 34 to the female estate. Of the 129 in the male estate, 74 had been convicted of one or more sexual offences.

Tbh, much as I'm really annoyed with MB, this all feels like time wasting. Getting bogged down in the stats from another judgement takes away time from looking at MBs conduct towards Allison at GCC.

Takes her to the minutes of a meeting of a strategy group she attended, and MB offered group pro bono advice.

Indeed! She displays her prejudice at every turn.

I need a break from listening to her drone on.

She is so suckered in it is terrifying that she is a judge? She can't even figure out why women might be wary of men who say they are women.

Quite. And as J. K. Rowling pointed out, single sex spaces suddenly assume a much greater significance when asking to maintain them is met by numerous threats of rape and violence.

MB: "When I was saying Garden Court I was probably meaning me... "

MB plays this down. Just her and a couple of others really.

That "Well..." is basically "I'm going to have to say yes here, but I don't want to" isn't it?

MB said she did two pieces of advice for SW in Nov 2018 with two other lawyers.
BC's ears pricked up.

More like that man from Vicar of Dibley - no, no, no, no, yes 😂

It may in part be the colour of her dress but I'm picking up Serena Joy energy

Well I've been watching for 20 minutes or so, and on her tone I think she is coming across as ingratiating towards BC. Has she got cross with him yet? Or is she so cocksure of her actions as valid that she doesn't mind at all spilling the beans?

Spot on lol

ResisterRex · Today 10:44

It's been saved in the wayback machine 34 times.

Excellent!

Michelle Brewer is a Tribunal Judge in the Immigration Chamber - she will be judging Immigration and Asylum cases, not ordinary criminal cases. This may account for her being sympathetic to, for example, transwomen asylum seekers.

MB and another barrister provided advice on schools guidance.

BC moves to email to Stephen Lue from client account manager at SW where GCC is flagged at SW as DC they hoped to work closely with. Suggests SL is rightly saying the TRWG was seeking to make relationships with SW.

IO intervenes saying this is confusing. Email is from SW to SL.

BC says he did say this.

i think Ben is wearing her resolve to argue down so that he then go in with the mic drop questions

Ooh, IO just woke up.

Do IO and RMW have a frozen picture?

MB says she doesn't know much about this.

This is a thought I keep coming back to. Like DR who seemed to only hear statements through his own filter, but DR isn't a judge. This would seriously undermine my own confidence in her ability to be impartial in a case before her, and her ability to rule on matters of process and law, and not be influenced by her underlying biases.