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

Ignore that, I'm getting my tribunals mixed up 🤦‍♀️

ABs starts on Tuesday so hopefully we will get something tomorrow.

I haven't had anything back but the standard auto-response. Still hopeful we may hear something today, but yes, the radio silence feels like it's not exactly in the spirit of Open Justice.

Only one person has said they have heard one way or another and is because they have been immediately rejected due to their location. I’m sure in previous hearings I’ve heard nothing apart from the auto reply and then an email with the deals. So this silence feels entirely consistent so far. Especially if, as Allison previously said, there is still a degree of uncertainty on whether there will be any online observation at all.

Allison sent out another email last night regarding the particular points of law that will be the subject of the hearing. I see she’s posted it also on X, hopefully this link will work: https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1789741069007036631

I do hope so. I know a few women who have been engaged in a bit of back and forth with the clerk regarding some of the questions, I suspect the people who sent an initial request with all the required information are the ones who have only had the auto-response - fingers crossed.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving does that person live outside the UK?

I can't think why else their request would be rejected, on those grounds.

That's me, and yes, I do live outside the UK. No one questioned location last time.

I think they might have written some regulations after the last hearings in 2023. The regulations sent to me were dated 2023.

It's not very Open Justice-y, is it??

It just sounds like an excuse to me. They seem to be unnecessarily picky.
Which rankles, because i'm assuming it's never been an issue before?

I can kind of understand the jurisdiction thing, it could potentially be used to get around the rules relating to not publishing what's been said without the court's permission (e.g. Tribunal Tweets being allowed to live tweet). But still, it would be easy enough to require observers to be bound by the law of England and Wales, surely?

The open justice concept seems to be a bit murkier than you'd hope/expect. I wonder if those involved don't like it and therefore there are ways being found to obstruct it?

Interesting, thanks.

That Times article is archived on archive dot ph. Here's an excerpt:

Judgment: November 1, 2017

It was a serious infringement of the right to privacy of transgender persons that the Department for Work and Pensions retained sensitive information about their gender history on its database. However, that interference was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate objectives of calculating entitlement to state benefits and identifying and detecting benefit fraud.

The Supreme Court so held, dismissing the appeal of C, from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Elias, Lord Justice Patten and Lady Justice Black) ([2016] PTSR 1344) of C’s appeal from the refusal by Mr Justice Simon ([2014] EWHC 2403 (Admin)) of C’s application for judicial review of a decision of the secretary of state for work and pensions not to remove information about C’s gender change and historical gender data about transgender customers from the database of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Ms Stephanie Harrison, QC, Ms Michelle Brewer and Ms Claire McCann for the claimant; Mr Charles Bourne, QC, Ms Heather Emmerson and Mr Rupert Paines for the secretary of state. The Equality Network intervened by written submissions only.

I think many Unions and other organisations have yet to catch up.

I suspect it's a matter of making it upas they go along, to be honest. It seemed like a good idea to allow remote access, but then the practicalities of that presented themselves with people misbehaving or not understanding how to behave. They are being reactive, rather than proactive. I don't blame them tightening up, it was a bit of a circus last time. But of course, would like them to appreciate how SPECIAL I am 😜and allow me access.

@SpinCityBlue thanks for the info.

The Office for Statistics Regulation earlier this year published good practice guidance on data collection etc.

I would like this to be compulsory so that all public sector organisations record sex registered at birth, legal sex and then gender as 3 distinct categories. The latter to have a “I do not have a gender identity” option.

I know it’s first thing Monday but no email yet.

Ms Stephanie Harrison, QC, Ms Michelle Brewer and Ms Claire McCann for the claimant;

I assume that would be Michelle Brewer of Garden Court Chambers who gave evidence against Allison Bailey that many struggled to believe. IIRC, it was also Michelle Brewer who had the bincident while conspiring on the phone as she was driving her car.

Stephanie Harrison did as well, i think.

Not the bincident bit!

Are we in for another round of We were very busy/I was on holiday/I don't remember/I was reversing into a bin at the time bullshit bingo?

That’s really interesting. So someone that was a witness against the claimant in the earlier hearing can now act on behalf of the respondent in the appeal? It really gives another side to their previous evidence doesn’t it.

No RMW this time?

Claire McCann gave Stonewall Law legal advice to the government during the Trans Equality Inquiry in 2015 and the Gender Recognition Act self ID proposal in 2018.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/61559/html/

www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/gender-recognition-self-id-and-next-steps

It seems I've caused confusion. Michelle Brewer acted in Regina (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which is unrelated to Allison Bailey's case. I was just struck that her name has popped up and it showed that there's a very busy trans activist group in the legal world.

Email has arrived!

Theres a document attached - which, grant you, is a sealed order - but it has all our real names on it?

Oh my goodness. That's horrendous.

Really??

I've just had mine.

The names was a bit of a shock!

Wait! What? Crikey.