Allison Bailey Appeal

[BordoisAgain]

She has just tweeted that she is appealing the decision to dismiss her claim against Stonewall in her recent case.

No news on if a garden is needed to be seeded though!

I'm not sure that's wise. Good luck to her, but it will be another long haul with no guarantee of a favourable outcome.

Tried to link to twitter but it didn't work 😕

Hmm, not sure about this, but also think it’s good to have things settled in court of appeal due to its ability to set precedent.

Oh wow wasn’t expecting that. I wonder on what grounds.

My heart dropped when I saw this title, I thought GCC were going to appeal!

Good luck to Allison, I presume the GCC bit is done and dusted so there’s no need for that circus to return to town?

If it’s just the Stonewall witnesses I can see it being worth it. It won’t be so epically long and expensive for one thing!
And there was a clear attempt to influence GCC in an unlawful way. What was their defence anyway,
doesn’t it boil down to “we have no power or influence and also we are completely inept, why would GCC have listened to us?” I think there’s some value making them give that another airing.

I can see why she'd want to appeal. If it can be done relatively cheaply... That last garden was massive!

Well, Stonewall's first bout was hilarious. If they're actually going to appear in Court this time, I hope they have a venue large enough for the support menagerie.

The tweets from AB:

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1572133035335716865

1/ BREAKING: I have appealed the decision of the ET dismissing my claim against Stonewall for causing a basic contravention of the Equality Act 2010. The appeal has been lodged at the EAT within the deadline. It will almost certainly be heard in the new year.

2/ The EAT will be asked to order that my claim against Stonewall succeeds. Garden Court Chambers have not appealed. The ET’s decision against them for discrimination & victimisation & the award of damages & aggravated damages stands.

3/ The ET’s findings that gender critical belief includes the belief that “gender identity theory as proselytised by Stonewall is severely detrimental” to women, and lesbians, is unchallenged and also stands. Stonewall is not off the hook. Far from it. ENDS

No one claimed she had actually won against Stonewall just that the sunlight hasn't done them any favours. She won against Garden Court Chambers.

I'm confused, I thought she had won on all the important points.

She did, so this is more about not wanting Stonewall to be let off the hook, I guess. Their defence was "whatever happened to Allison, whatever Garden Court did, it was nothing to do with us, cos Garden Court didn't have to listen to us".

And that worked. This is now appealing the logic. I imagine the basic grounds of this is the following in the Equality Act.

(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

(5)Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—
(a)by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;
(b)by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;
(c)by the Commission.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—
(a)the basic contravention occurs;
(b)any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A's conduct.

I don't recall how far they dug into that in the original tribunal.

So if GCC have not appealed, what will their role be in an appeal?
Will they still need to be called as witnesses?

Or will it solely be SW?

I think it will be interesting to see if Stonewall can legally be held accountable.

Because if they CAN, well, what a kettle of fish that could open. Just how many corporates will actually take notice of Stonewall’s advice after that?

It would really open up the stonewalling efforts thus far, wouldn’t it? It would show corporates just how far down a garden path of misrepresented law they were willing to go for pats on the head.

It would throw a laser into lobbying groups and their efforts generally.

I doubt Allison will have embarked on this course without careful thought or further legal advice.

I see merit in it based on the points Necessay Scene highlighted.

I also see merit given how whenever Stonewall or trans ideologists have to defend themselves publicly they end up looking thoroughly unhinged.

I'm up for some gardening before the winter sets in.

Did Allison avoid announcing this till the last minute till it was too late for GCC to appeal?

I feel like this might have somehow precipitated GCC to get re-involved, if they’d got wind of it. I don’t know why I think that, though.

It did seem to be a fairly obvious contravention to my untrained eye so I was a little surprised at the outcome. Maybe the judge was so disorientated by the support dog and eye opening behaviour of Stonewall’s witnesses that she didn’t consider it properly?

I got the impression that the last thing GCC was going to do was appeal. They just looked at every stage as if they wanted it over and done with as quickly as possible.

Perhaps, making her sure first victory was secure before, possibly, starting a fight on a second front.

I'm assuming if she does win against sw, it'll also be significant for all the clones and the groups embedded within organisations?

I still think it will be a hard one to win as they are a degree removed from the treatment she received from people at GCC, but maybe the focus will make their influence clearer.

Seems like it would be hard to prove they had a direct impact even though we all know they did. But I'm sure Allison wouldn't be embarking on this unless she felt there was a strong case. I don't know much about law - can you introduce new evidence at an appeal or is it just re-examing what was presented before? Just wondered if there is something new that would make a difference.

Seems like it would be hard to prove they had a direct impact even though we all know they did.

That doesn't need to be proven, according to the wording above. The inducement can be indirect, and it doesn't even matter whether the person being induced ended up discriminating. (Although in this case GCC has already found to discriminate).

Simple indirect inducement would be sufficient to hit Stonewall, even if GCC had been found to have not discriminated.

If I understand correctly, at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, there will be re-examination of the case presented at the lower tribunal but it won't involve bringing witnesses back in to re-do things. There are significant hurdles to getting in new evidence. It will be much drier proceedings. It won't be like the Maya case because although that had EAT proceedings, the fireworks only happened because the case went back down to the lower tribunal because they hadn't even heard the substantive case the first time.

And that reminds me, nauticant, that by it heading to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, it will end up being binding in a way the first judgment wasn't, like Forstater.

I don't know how much precedent (binding or not) there is about the "inducement" part of the Equality Act. I can't imagine it's come up that often. Before Stonewall started doing what it's doing now, how often have there been groups trying to persuade others to discriminate?

Yes it's worth reading Maya's EAT judgment or reading the MN threads discussing it at the time the case was being heard to see how it works in the EAT.

Simple indirect inducement would be sufficient to hit Stonewall, even if GCC had been found to have not discriminated.

Like that letter/email which had the 'nice little business you've go here, shame if...' flavour?

Personally, whatever the result, seeing Stonewall's shocking homophobia splashed across MSM, can only be a benefit imo.