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

This.

The wife has been royally screwed. And not in a good way.

Thanks for mentioning it. Have just planted a tulip or two.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but this case is continuing today by the looks of it on Twitter..... twitter.com/tribunaltweets/with_replies

Different case, that's Randall vs Trent College.

Different case - they're covering Randall vs Trent College. At 2 pm.
WP Penty, headmaster of Trent College will continue giving evidence.

Ah, okay, thanks so much.

in current day it was easier for her to avoid dick by calling herself a gay trans man who only wanted T4T relationships (ie, relationships with other lesbians who identified as men).

Sneaky. So a woman can still get away with being same sex attracted but only if she first pretends to be a man.

Oh right . Because male people get to have choice and autonomy where females are just walking sex resources with no right to gatekeep their bodies from being used by males in need.

Yeah, that doesn't sound in any way FUBAR.

Because of the article in the telegraph Allison Bailey has tweeted - that Mermaids were not under oath at this tribunal.

That's handy for them.

I am confused. I thought any witness whetehr expert or otherwise is under oath at Tribunal or in court? I thought the judge reminded the witnesses before breaks that they were still on oath and not to discuss?

Since when is it legal to be not under oath giving evidence in court? (I am not involved in law but just presumed everyone giving evidence had to be).

Sorry I don't know how to copy stuff from Twitter, but I'll put the full tweet here:

The Tribunal didn't require any witness to take an oath to tell the truth despite LGBA's KC making that request. That was an error in my opinion. Nonetheless she gave the evidence in a court of law.

I don't understand - I've just googled two questions (do you have to/can you refuse) and it said, respectively:

If you're giving evidence during the hearing you will be asked to swear an oath or make a legally binding promise (known as an affirmation) that your evidence will be true.

and

A witness who attends court but who refuses to take the oath or affirmation, or who improperly refuses to give evidence, is liable to be fined or imprisoned.
In the magistrates’ court, s.97(4) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 enables the court to impose up to one month’s imprisonment or a fine up to £2500 for any of the following acts committed by a witness without just excuse:
refusal to take the oath or affirm;
refusal to give evidence;

Tribunals and courts may have slightly different rules.

IANAL. I have experience appearing at Tribunals as an Expert Witness. I have never had to swear an oath, but always was there in support of an expert witness report which itself makes the declaration that I am there to give honest answers and that my responsibility is to the Tribunal and not my client. I have always believed that I am effectively under oath as a result of the expert witness report, even though I have not explicitly sworn an oath.

I have never been at a Tribunal hearing where there were witnesses who were not expert witnesses, but I would assume that witnesses need to swear an oath.

Could AB be getting confused between court (which she is used to) and rules at an ET which she is probably not?

Surely all witnesses should be under oath.

I am confused.

I think that this might mean...

The Tribunal didn't require any witness to take an oath to tell the truth despite LGBA's KC making that request. That was an error in my opinion, as taking an oath would have focussed the minds of the witnesses. I fear that the witnesses might have taken their responsibility to the truth less seriously as a result of not being reminded of the seriousness of the proceedings by the oath-swearing process. Nonetheless she gave the evidence in a court of law, and in court you have to tell the truth whether you have sworn or not, so there is no excuse if any witness lied.

@YouSirNeighMmmm I am confused too. I even had to be 'sworn' at my solicitor's office to complete some divorce stuff (conveyancing? It was so long ago. A signed declaration wasn't enough - I had to say the words.)

I just got your username btw. Excellent

You couldn't really expect Mermaids' witnesses to swear hand on heart and under oath to anything that they profess to believe?! Though I'd be very interested to see what arguments they put forward to avoid doing so.

Just in case anybody else is wondering, the trial/summing up continues on 7th-8th November (Monday & Tuesday).

What a month!

That’ll be interesting!

I wonder if Mermaids will still exist by then... they seem to be rapidly imploding. If they don't, will the tribunal continue?

How much of the new information that has become publicly available in past two weeks or so can be introduced during the remaining days of the hearing?

Can the LGBA present it to the judge in any way?

So much of the case is based on the threat LGBA pose to Mermaids in terms of grants/donors, isn’t it? I’d suggest that the biggest threat to them is Mermaids themselves…

As I understand it, LGB Alliance's lawyers can refer to this stuff in their closing submissions because Mermaids are not the ones "on trial", so to speak, so it wouldn't be introducing new evidence.

If I were them I would refer to this latest series of scandals to highlight exactly why LGB Alliance are right to be concerned about Mermaids' activities, but I wouldn't dwell too much on it because Mermaids' complaint relates to LGB Alliance's previous conduct. They can say they always knew Mermaids were a safeguarding nightmare and these things are just more evidence of that, but they can't claim that these specific issues formed the basis of LGB Alliance's concerns, because they weren't public knowledge at the relevant time.

The same with the funding issue. They can suggest that any impact on Mermaids' funding caused by LGB Alliance's previous conduct is now going to be pretty minor compared to the reputational damage Mermaids is now suffering due to these safeguarding issues being made public, but that would be kind of retrospectively justifying LGB Alliance's conduct. Better to stick to the line that the LGB Alliance is David to Mermaids' Goliath, and that if anything, it is Mermaids who have deprived LGB Alliance of funding by smearing them as a hate group.

That's good thinking, @babyjellyfish. Thank you.