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

It clearly says access will be granted by order of the judge, and I wouldn’t necessarily have an issue with the order just naming me, but specifying occupations and locations I think are unnecessary. Plus the carelessness with distributing the orders by email. Those are the two things I have issue with.

And I don’t expect the legal team to talk to us now, I meant after the case has been heard.

Well, I hope it will be discussed.

I would argue that this approach discourages "Open Justice" - will those who have had such details shared without their consent want to view tribunals in future, or will they stay away? Is that the intention with this action?

This is terrible for disabled people who are physically unable to attend in person. Why should those people have their details shared when non-disabled people able to attend in person do not? (I find myself questioning whether this meets the threshold for indirect discrimination under EA2010 as those unable to attend in person are disproportionately likely to be disabled...)

Court lists should [...] include enough information for individuals to make decisions about observation of court hearings

But surely that is about making it clear what case is being heard, where, and when (and possibly details of the professionals involved).

Nobody is going to make a decision to observe (or not) a case based on who else is (or isn't) watching. So sharing data on observers is not covered by the stated aim.

Also, if they're acting in a way likely to discourage attendance, and treating in-person and online observers differently and those 2 groups are likely to differ in respect of protected charateristics (and the reasons given for requesting access suggest they do), they surely risk straying into indirect discrimination as well as being on dodgy data-protection ground.

I find it unacceptable of the court to tell a load of strangers that a particular women has childcare issues i.e., in effect, 'she has young children' (or is responsible for young children), especially in a context like this.

I'd prefer to see 'Reasons for not attending in person: given and accepted' for that category, for any reasons given.

I'm a bit peeved, to be honest. I think I will be taking this up with them after the hearing is concluded. In my case I'm relatively happy that the persons named along with me are 'safe', but that is by the by. I have an unusual name and location and would be found on social media in an instant. I'm appalled on all your behalfs as well.

Yes, this method has an obvious chilling effect. How many of us that have applied giving our specific identifying details will apply for another tribunal that requires the same?

I believe it is a clear violation of the law, sealed orders or not. The Information Commissioner should be all over this.

Just reading around this a bit more.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privacy-notice-for-tribunal-forms/privacy-notice-for-tribunals-forms#about-personal-data

• 5. When we ask you for personal data we:promise to inform you why we need your personal data
• will ask only for the personal data we need and not collect information that is irrelevant or excessive
• will protect it and make sure no unauthorised person has access to it
• may share it with other organisations but only where necessary and permitted by the law (see below)
• will make sure we don’t keep it longer than is necessary

You can:

• request access to your personal data or ask for it to be corrected
• object to our processing of your personal data or ask for the processing to be restricted
• lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner (see below)

1. Who the information may be shared withThe information you provide us will typically be shared with the other parties involved in the case, including their legal representatives.

The information you give us will not usually be shared with anyone who is not a party to the case unless this is specifically ordered by the tribunal or permitted by the Tribunal Procedure Rules (“the Rules”). This type of processing of personal data by a tribunal is not covered by this privacy notice as it is generally carried out by the independent judiciary. Where we are required to share personal data, we will comply with all aspects of the rules, including data protection laws. The categories of organisations with whom we may be required to share your personal data obtained in tribunal forms may include agencies contracted by HMCTS (e.g. interpreters, intermediaries, transcription or translation agencies), other Government departments, tribunals or courts and public authorities within or outside the EU. Subject to certain exceptions which are specified below, tribunal hearings will be held in public unless the tribunal orders otherwise, so if information you give is referred to at a hearing then it may become public in that way. Media representatives or other persons can attend and report on public hearings, unless the tribunal orders otherwise. The cases that must be heard in private are set out in legislation:

• Section 108 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that a tribunalhearing must be heard in private where it is alleged that a document relied upon by a party to an appeal under section 82 is a forgery, and that disclosure to that party regarding the detection of the forgery would be contrary to public interest
• Rule 26(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Procedure Rules 2008 states that a First-tier Tribunal hearing must be heard in private if it involves special educational needs and disability discriminationin schools, unless the tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to be held in public. Under Rule 38, mental health cases in the First-tier Tribunal are also heard in private, unless the tribunal considers that it is in theinterests of justice for the hearing to be held in public
• Rule 30(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 states that a First-tier Tribunal hearing must be heard in private if it involves criminal injuries compensation, unless the appellant has consented to the hearing being held in public, and the tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to be held in public
• Rule 48(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 states that where the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal acts as an arbitrator in a reference by consent under section 1(5) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949, any hearing must be held in private unless the parties agree otherwise

This seems to be the key bit

The information you give us will not usually be shared with anyone who is not a party to the case unless this is specifically ordered by the tribunal or permitted by the Tribunal Procedure Rules (“the Rules”)

That would not include observers.

I'd also want to them to explain how collecting occupations fits with

not collect information that is irrelevant or excessive

Location may be justifiable to collect if they need to judge whether distance from court is an allowable reason for not attending in persion. Although I think they're on dodgier ground justifying a need to share that data with anyone other than those making the admit/don't admit decision.

Distance shouldn’t be a factor. You could live in the next street over from the court and still not be able to attend in person due to disability, accessibility, carer responsibilities, juggling work/clients and observing etc etc.

none of the other observers needs to know that though.

As you have all received a sealed order, pertaining to something between those receiving the order, It its impossible to comment, on how and why personal data was shared between parties.

Tribunals are a lower Court of Law under the Jurisdiction of the High Court.

As most of you will know in Meade it was clear that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the regulatory body Social Work England. (Who I suspect thought otherwise)

Likewise the ICO is a regulatory body and therefore subject to the Courts jurisdiction. So they have no authority and cannot intervene, or “be all over it”

The best way forward is to request a full explanation after the end of the hearing. As I am assuming any expansive response from a judge at this juncture may have an effect on the sealed order itself. But I do not know that, and none of us should speculate.

Orders from a tribunal usually expire after a judgement is issued.

Personally I would love to know if there were any surprises on the attendees list. But of course I cannot.

I've just seen this. My name and location is on the list. And they've got the wrong reason for me wanting to attend remotely. I am 'out' but I am furious that they have been so cavalier with my personal information. There is no excuse or justification for it whatsoever. When I have calmed down I am going to decide what to do about it.

@CriticalCondition see above there is nothing you can do.

That's not correct. I can and shall decide who to complain to and when best to do so.

It is an outrageous thing to do. I see no good reason for the court to circulate this detailed information to other observers. They could have made an order and kept the names separate or included a bare list of names only with no other information. I've never seen anything like it.

Didn’t spot if this was already shared:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judiciary-and-data-protection-privacy-notice/

The above documents signposts to this which suggests a means by which you CAN raise a complaint about this:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Judicial-data-processing-complaints-handling-policy.pdf

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short time in the FWR board, telling us there is nothing we can do is akin to a challenge. There are lots of very knowledgeable women about and the tribunal threads usually attract those of a legal persuasion so hopefully one will be along who can shed a bit more light.

I’m intrigued on how the judge/clerks are going to do the ID verification on Teams to admit us as observers. On the software used previously, in the Phoenix hearing, the clerk pulled us into a private 1:1 chat to confirm our name and that we’d keep the camera off. I’m not aware of how you’d do that in Teams, so I’m mentally preparing myself for anyone that’s in the call to hear me and see me speak to confirm my name. I’m not sure what I’d say if they publicly asked for my location and occupation and email address and what I had for breakfast…

Sloejellys link is your only option. Having scan read it it does not seem to me to really be of much help other than to amend inaccuracies.

You need to re-read more carefully.

I don't understand this mindset - surely people have a right to complain if they feel their data was incorrectly shared. Whether anything is done about it, who knows, but people can complain if they want to.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving Hi

firstly any legally qualified person who has not registered to be a remote observer will have no idea what the order relates to or why you are all listed, so they will not be able to comment here.

Secondly any legally qualified remote observer will know what the order means and why you are all named on it, and they are not going to comment here either, in the event that any comment would be a contempt of said order.

I do not think most of you understand the powers of Courts.

If you read the link and/or extract posted by @Pyjamagame you'll see that's not true.

You can:

• request access to your personal data or ask for it to be corrected
• object to our processing of your personal data or ask for the processing to be restricted
• lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner (see below)