Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 3

[nauticant]

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

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.

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

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

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: 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 (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

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)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request

I’ve been managing to catch bits today.
Latest witness seems very nervous, must be so daunting being on the stand

MG is trying to show that there was a low level of activity about LGB issues in a charitable organisation sense, and that was because most of the focus was on gender critical lobbying.

MG's pauses are so long, I keep thinking I've lost sound.

maybe he's having difficulty working out what his argument is

I've only been able to dip in and out of bits of this due to work. Bev and Kate have both had stellar moments of truth and clarity but overall I can't get a feel for where it's going. Probably because it's such a ridiculous case in the first place.

What is the general feeling as to whether the Mermaids legal team has done a good job?

Because we're labelled as a hate groups, it's very hard to get people to give us money. This is why we have trouble getting funding.

Exactly

or maybe deliberately wasting time.

I think Mermaids have done a reasonable job in establishing legal standing to have brought the case and has raised the question whether the majority of LGBA's efforts have been focused on lobbying and protesting about gender identity ideology. But overall I can imagine the judges contemplating in horror the precedent they're being asked to set and the consequences that could follow.

It's high risk because Mermaids' claim is based on the assertion that LGB Alliance has no actual charitable objectives and only exists to promote an anti-trans narrative.

If this case goes against LGBA, for the above reason, would there be anything to stop another LGB Charity being set up almost immediately, with the Charity Objectives being front and centre? (not saying they aren’t now).

If this case goes against LGBA, for the above reason, would there be anything to stop another LGB Charity being set up almost immediately, with the Charity Objectives being front and centre? (not saying they aren’t now).

I can't think why not.

Thinking about it, the General Regulatory Chamber is a First-tier Tribunal and so might not set binding legal precedent.

I can't think why not.

I really hope so @TheKeatingFive

Thanks.

I struggle to understand why as a charity they would not allowed to be critical of GI and those who promote it from a perspective of homophobia. Otherwise we're left with yes an LGB charity can exist but they must never mention this one specific form of homophobia because it might upset the people being homophobic.

It took LGBA around a year to get CC status. Don't know if anyone else has the determination / passion / commitment / stroppiness to jump through all those hoops again.

And whether, in the circumstances, a relaunched LGBA charity would be effective or would be shunned.

Apologies if this has been asked or explained in an earlier thread, but I’m confused at why there is so little visibility from the Charity Commission at the hearing?

My understanding is that they are the First Respondent in this case, but they have not been cross examined at all just LGBA representatives as Second Respondents?

Also the CC Counsel has also not undertaken any cross examination of witnesses, only a few points of clarification?

Is this unusual or unexpected, or is there a reason for LGBA having to shoulder the defence of the CC decision to award them charitable status?

If this case goes against LGBA, for the above reason, would there be anything to stop another LGB Charity being set up almost immediately, with the Charity Objectives being front and centre? (not saying they aren’t now).

Yes, I think worst case scenario would be to re-group, make the alterations required by any ruling and re-launch within whatever new guidelines necessary.

However, the impact for MM and SW will be far more damaging I think.

I don't think that the Charity Commissioner has any skin in the game, they've turned up because they're a party to an appeal, but might be rather agnostic about what happens.

In other words, it might benefit them to do a Switzerland.

Kate Grimes is also a lesbian who as a young nurse used to come back to her locker at her workplace with the word "Queer" spray-painted across it. That's her personal experience, you MB numpty

Think you are right nauticant. CC could have robustly defended their (painstaking and thorough) original decision which might well have influenced the decision to allow MM's claim to go ahead. No courage in their own convictions.

I feel like this witness has a harder job in some ways than the previous LGB ones - it's obvious that the LGBA want to put as much emphasis as they can on the work they've done, but they haven't had the resources to achieve much so far, and tbf I think their lobbying has been much more visible than the other services they're providing. There's something of the nightmare job interview about it. ("Did this pub quiz really 'provide much-needed support to victims of human rights abuses'?" 😬)

Thanks nauticant.

I can understand that reasoning, although I would have thought the CC may have concerns that should MM be successful it could open the floodgates of other similar challenges across the charity sector as organisations seek to 'protect' their funding opportunities by removing 'competition.

What could the remedies be though? Would Mermaids get a financial payout if they won, and who from?

I can imagine the CC not wanting the result to go Mermaids' way because the result could be skirmishes breaking out between "opposing" charities within their purview. But they might also not want to be seen making the difference in this case by "siding with the transphobes". Ironically enough, they themselves will be alive to the politics.

If this case goes against LGBA, for the above reason, would there be anything to stop another LGB Charity being set up almost immediately, with the Charity Objectives being front and centre? (not saying they aren’t now).

I was wondering that. I think there is a definite need for an organisation that supports LGB people. If LGBA have in some way gone wrong couldn't this be dealt with via the charity commission pulling them up on where they are overstepping (as happened recently) rather than by de registering them altogether?

Also have all the witnesses been for the LGBA? When did the Charity Commission give their evidence? (I did miss the first day so may have missed it)