Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

[ickky]

Allison Bailey has tweeted her intention to appeal the Stonewall decision.

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1572133035335716865

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council was on the 20th June.

There was also live tweeting from

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall-and-garden

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 )
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 = Judge Goodman, Mr M. Reuby and Ms Darmas

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
Thread 14 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556407-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-14
Thread 15 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556803-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-15
Thread 16 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4557036-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-16
Thread 17 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4561850-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-17
Thread 18 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4574654-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-18

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)
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, 25 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Cathryn McGahey - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - Head clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing (25 May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC (25 May)
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge (26 May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers (26 May)

Closing arguments for AB, GCC, and SW (20 June)

Allison Bailey's Witness Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf
Supplementary Statement
allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C-Supplementary-Witness-Statement.pdf
Closing Statement
allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CLOSING-SUBMISSIONS-FINAL.pdf

The Reserved Judgement (forth one down)

www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-a-bailey-v-stonewall-equality-ltd-and-others-2202172-slash-2020

If you attend in person, do you have to give your name? Does anyone know?

No you don't.

Update:

I've received a response. I'm one of a few other remote access/out of jurisdiction requests to have been granted access and have now received the sealed orders pertaining to me and the others in my situation.

Out of interest, the clerk writes the judge 'states there has been no data breach as the principle of open justice applies to the Tribunal’s orders.'. I guess those of you who have queried GDPR will receive a similar response.

Yes I’ve received a similar response from He/Him/His

No, not to observe. It's a case of going through the metal detector at security, very like airport security, then you look at the court listings that are displayed on the wall(s), and head into your court. Usually a court clerk is available to give directions if you're lost or answer queries.

You go into the court and find a seat in the public observers' section.

I've never been asked to show ID, in any capacity.

You certainly don't have to let everyone else attending know your personal details.

the judge 'states there has been no data breach as the principle of open justice applies to the Tribunal’s orders.'.
That doesn't make sense to me - 'open justice' may require that all the parties to the case are identified, but surely not members of the public? especially if attendees in person are not identified.
One of the underlying principles of data protection is that the bare minimum of data should be gathered, and used only for necessary, specific and named purposes.

It just doesn't feel right at all. I'd feel very unsettled if it happened to me.

@MarieDeGournay

No. It doesn't feel right.

And we then get an email re access from a court official with He/Him set out at the very top of his email address. That seems inappropriate given the subject of this case.

Is the court exempt from following the GDPR requirements then? Doesn't the GDPR require that when you share someone's data you inform them of that and get their permission to share?

I thought that too.

I'm deep down the rabbit hole now on the ico.org.uk website. According to the lawful basis page, 'consent must always be specific and informed.'

I just sent a bog-standard email with the info required, which I understood to be necessary in order to potentially access remote observation.

I didn't expect any of that information to be shared or used for anything other than reasons of accountability.

Imagine sitting in a court room as an observer and the court clerk intoning, 'and in Row 5, seat B of the public gallery, we have Spin City Blue who works at the local university, and has young children. On her left is Nora Goggins, a social worker from Brighton, with disabilities ...'

I wonder exactly what the Judge was told by admin about the queries / complaints coming in, and if he really knows the actual full detail of what's happened and been shared, as opposed to a scant version of it?

I'd like to know that, as well.

I'm hoping it is addressed tomorrow.

I know Allison has rather more significant things on her plate right now, but do you think anyone from her legal team could explain things to us non-lawyers that makes sense as to why this is ok?

i don’t mean the blessed Ben who I expect will be limbering up and gargling honey and lemon, but the solicitor team.

I’m glad you got access but it still seems wrong you got a sealed court order that was not relevant to you.

I've been looking at definitions of 'Open Justice', and found this in a paper by justice.org.uk
With respect to engagement with individual proceedings, we have concluded that: a) Court lists should be more accessible and easier to navigate online. They should include enough information for individuals to make decisions about observation of court hearings, whilst not sharing a disproportionate amount of personal information
Open-Justice-Consultation-Response-September-2023.pdf
Of course that extract, and the bit I've underlined, might have a meaning that differs from face value, I don't have any legal expertise.

However, this from the same paper seems pretty clear to me, and sharing IDs without consent sounds like it is the opposite of facilitating scrutiny, in fact the words 'chilling effect' spring to mind:
open justice has three clear purposes: it preserves the legitimacy of the justice system in the eyes of the public; it facilitates scrutiny of the justice system and the actors involved in it; and it increases the accessibility of the law itself.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving I doubt it, they have bigger fish to fry.

I'm shocked that peoples names and details have been sent to all. That is not on.

(For once I'm glad I've been lazy and not got around to applying to watch this)

If this is the price to pay to watch Ben annihilate Stonewall then so be it.

Those of you who are complaining, who are you emailing your complaint to?

@Signalbox

Here are the guidelines

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EAT-REMOTE-OBSERVATION-GUIDANCE-1.pdf

Thanks Ickky