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

I’m not aware of how you’d do that in Teams,

It's possible to create breakout rooms, so they should be able to do it individually.

@HornyHornersPinkyWinky Hiya

It is not a mindset, it is a legal fact. I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law that, Courts cannot be interfered with by any other wing (pillar) of the state.

I am not a lawyer but studied law and got a first. And I have continued my interest, in lots of ways and keep myself abreast to changes, decisions, through here and other places, as do some lawyers.

The only other possibility you all could have is to make an application to the High Court to rule the judges decision as somehow unlawful, good luck with that one, legally and financially.

If the judicial data protection panel uphold a complaint and it raises matters of serious concern “it will be referred to the Senior Presiding Judge or relevant Chambers President.”

With the greatest of respect to your academic studies and achievements @Karensalright there are actual qualified solicitors and barristers on this board. Ones who do this stuff as a day job.

GDPR applies to Courts, just as the Equality Act applies and other laws too. Courts do have to abide by existing law, they can't just assert powers they don't legitimately hold, and can be challenged when they do.

Even if the existing law, or interpretation of the law, seems to allow this to happen, it does not follow that the interpretation is correct or that it cannot be challenged. This is why we have higher Courts and the Judicial Review process. Because Courts do get things wrong.

People supplied data that any reasonable person would expect to be kept private. I suspect the ICO would be interested.

I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law that…

🥱

I am trying to explain without bogging you all down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law

Without bogging you down with the ins and outs of our constitutional law, the judiciary are still bound by the law.

People supplied data that any reasonable person would expect to be kept private. I suspect the ICO would be interested.

In this case it would be the judicial data protection panel rather than the ICO as it concerns a tribunal order.

I’ve gone into Teams on my work laptop and just spotted that, so thanks. I’ve only ever used them before in WebEx.

Slojelly is correct and as stated.

Have you all not noticed nobody who is legally qualified has come along and commented, for the reasons I have stated.

I was only trying to help.

Am not going to pick on anybody here or yawn at anybody.

YOU ARE A BUNCH OF ARGUMENTATIVE FUCKERS AND I LOVE YOU xxxxxxxxxxxx

Others have already answered more eloquently than in could but as you addressed this post to me I thought I’d do you the courtesy of replying.

I find your reply contradictory and patronising. Particularly this bit:

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

I do not think you understand the knowledge of the posters on this board.

Indeed. I also do not think you understand what contempt of court means.

Fair enough, is that a new thing?

Whoever people need to complain to, sharing sensitive data like this is highly concerning. I don't think one needs a law degree to understand why that might be.

Was that aimed at me CC - Do you think I’ve revealed something I shouldn’t? (Genuine question not sarcasm)

Sorry, @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving . That wasn't aimed at you but at Karensalright. Apologies for not being clear. It's late and I'm fed up with being told how to suck eggs by someone waving a law degree. A first no less.

No worries, I realised after posting that’s probably what you meant but it’s late here too.

Interesting the number of people that aren’t qualified lawyers but hold first class law degrees and yet post on all sorts of weird corners of the internet

I'm wondering if @Karensalright may be thinking of DPA exceptions that apply to courts in criminal cases?

The DPA / GDPR applies to civil tribunals but one is expected to raise issues first with the court setting in question, and work through the process.

I have previously however simultaneously issued a 'stop processing notice' to an organisation with quasi-judicial functions and it had a remarkably rapid effect. The subsequent re-write of a document - that did understandably take time - was significantly different; but Version #1 was pulled meanwhile.

If that hadn't worked then I'd have been contacting the office of the ICO immediately.

The Gov.uk site makes clear you can make a complaint to the ICO. Definitely would appear reasonable to do so given what appears to be a monumental fuck up by court staff here!

Caveat - I do only have a Desmond of a law degree!

Interesting the number of people that aren’t qualified lawyers but hold first class law degrees and yet post on all sorts of weird corners of the internet

My thought too.

The DPA and the GDPR exceptions apply to all courts equally. Obviously the data sharing issue all be it limited to observers is upsetting.

I wonder if Stonewall are behind this order.

Will tribunal tweets be allowed?

The only people who know the rational for the data releases are those in receipt of the order and cannot,I assume, tell us here.

I hope you all PM each other and figure out what to do about it.

I feel quite sad about how nasty and sneery some people are being towards me, tonight. When i was only trying to help to the best of my knowledge.

I am not an enemy, and it’s has been very personal

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I think it's bedtime.

@CriticalCondition yes i agree on that

i thought i had a political home, not so tonight.

Ah, yes. "Be kind". That doesn't hold too much sway around here, especially on the fast moving threads following hearings. The content and style of your posts are not of the same quality of other posters who claim legal knowledge. They have established credibility in previous threads; as yet you have not. A variety of opinions is welcome and it's perfectly fine to ask daft questions, but patronising and contradictory posts will not get a warm and fuzzy response. Neither will emotional flounces.

If you go back and read the links ickky posted up thread, they take you to the instructions on applying for remote observation. These clearly state that in this court, remote observation access is granted by order of the judge. So no, Stonewall is not "behind the order" because this is standard procedure, and anyway there could be plenty of Stonewall supporters in the listed names, we just don't know. The order contains no rationale for why any personal information is included other than our names, which is why those of us who have seen the order are debating it here. Out in the open, not on PM.

We'll presumably find out tomorrow (later today, bastard insomnia) if Tribunal Tweets can do their thing.