Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chameber) Thread 2

[nauticant]

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony started on 12 September.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets.

To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (?? September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (?? September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - Not yet available
Dr Belinda Bell: Not yet available
Beverley Jackson: Not yet available
Kate Harris: Not yet available
Eileen Gallagher: Not yet available

Submissions:

lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

This approach sounds rude and possibly insulting

It wasn't that it sounded rude, it was the fact that having jumped from point to point, by the time MG was on the fifth go of his scattergun it was sounding very half hearted. Undermining but in a very low energy way.

You had to be on the stream to get the overall effect.

I have no doubt MG is doing the best he can with the material provided.

He really, really isn't. I don't know him and have never heard of him until today, but he is a KC and has experience in the law relating to charities, so he sounds just the advocate for the job.

And he is doing his job reasonably well, bearing in mind the case he is putting before the court on behalf of his client.

The line of questioning relating to the police was, I suspect, to do with the fact that charities should not have a political agenda, and he was trying to persuade the witness to agree that LGBA was engaged in political activity.

Perhaps it was the only one they could get to represent them. Or maybe he was recommended by a certain other tax, fox killing specialist?

For posterity.

Thank you for your insight on this. Perhaps I was too hard on him. If I was his client I wouldn't have been thrilled. But if I was his client I would have taken my lawyer's advice and abandoned the case... You're right. He has nothing solid to work with,

This is not an employment tribunal @LeadingQuestion 🙂 but thank you for the insight into the legal process. So all the evidence has to be in the bundles then? no dramatic producing of the key bit of data with a flourish at the end of the examination? Can a witness state something as fact, under oath, and THEN produce the evidence to back it up? or has it all got to be up front?

Leading question... You say "the fact that charities should not have a political agenda.." but is that a fact? I was under the impression that very many charities have political agendas and some actively lobby govts to further their political aims.

Yes - sorry - not an employment tribunal. I have been reading the other threads!

All the evidence should be in the bundles. The sudden production with a flourish of a vital piece of evidence is the stuff of TV shows and films! In our jurisdiction, we have a "cards on the table" approach to litigation, which means that all sides are able to see, in advance, the evidence which the other side has. This helps to encourage parties to settle cases, rather than go to trial. Obviously, this type of dispute is unlikely to be resolved in advance, but the principal remains. Please remember, this type of case is outside my experience, so there might be peculiarities I am unaware of.

Rarely, evidence might emerge at the time of the trial, and in such cases the judge would need to take a decision as to whether it could be admitted or not and that would depend on many things and would be fact specific.

This is informative in terms of charities and politics:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354727/Charities_politics_and_campaigning_MP_factsheet_6.pdf

Sorry, I should have been clearer. My understanding is that they cannot have a political purpose. I've just had a quick look at guidance here - www.gov.uk/government/publications/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities-cc9/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities - and found this "political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes".

When listening to the cross examination just before the close of today's proceedings, I was wondering about the KC's reasoning around the questions about the police's approach and then the LGBA's approach. My recollection may not be precise, but I am reasonably sure that he put to her that LGBA was engaged in political activities/posturing - I really cannot recall the exact phrase he used. Why would he do that? The only possible reason I can come up with is that he may say that the LGBA has overstepped the mark. I may be wrong!

Cross post with the link, nauticant.

How on earth can a charity overstep the mark by saying what millions of people are thinking and speaking out for all the LGB people who cannot speak for themselves?

The only possible reason I can come up with is that he may say that the LGBA has overstepped the mark.

Hard to say where, though, isn't it?

Is there anything "political" LGB Alliance has campaigned on that Stonewall and/or Mermaids haven't?

GRA reform, conversion therapy bans - plenty of campaigning from everyone.

One of the other whole critiques of LGBA is that they're being "anti-trans" by concentrating on opposing "pro-trans" reforms - ie the things the other charities are campaigning for themselves.

Why have Mermaids been so irredeemably stupid in bringing in an insolvency lawyer to represent them?

Hopefully he'll be able to help them out again soon!

If only...

That perhaps throws more light on why Stonewall are staying right out of this.

How could it possibly be denied that they are not an active political lobby group with a powerful political agenda? And the achievement of those political aims IS a large part of their charitable purpose.

Jesse Singal drawing comparisons with his own experience

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1569693318170157057

1/ Not to be me-ish, I got something very similar when I reached out to GLAAD about being on their blacklist. On the blacklist, they claim I made unsupported statements about youth GD. Then, in response to me: "GLAAD is not a medical organization or association"

2/ It's the same pattern of making very strong claims about youth GD that are well ahead of the evidence AND/OR attacking and seeking to defame those who disagree. Then, when asked to present evidence for their own position -- "What, us? We're not a science organization!"

I was of the understanding that LGBA’s ‘political stance’ is pretty much just to properly uphold the current laws, especially EA2010 and the meanings of the language used to write those laws (eg ‘homosexual’ = exclusively same sex attracted and ‘woman’ = female human’ ‘child’ = person under the age legal
majority). It’s not exactly a radical position!

Exactly. It is insane this is having to be argued at all.

I've messaged you, Red.

@ImNotAnExpert That is amazing. Thank you for sharing 😂

Just to add, I don't really want to get involved in whether any arguments which may be put forward by either side are good ones or not. I was simply musing about why that line of questioning was being put - but I'll keep my musings to myself going forward 🤐.

No, please don't. You have no idea how opaque legal procedure can seem to those of us with limited experience of the court system and law. I've learned so much watching these tribunals and gained so much respect for some lawyers. Please stick around and help us understand better.

Seconded. I don't comment much on these threads as some of the legal minutiae baffles me!