Jo Phoenix vs The OU Employment Tribunal 2nd October (whispers Ben Cooper)

[ickky]

Employment Tribunal starts next Monday, not sure if it is available for remote viewing.

I have sent a request so we will see.

It is. I'm now feeling vaguely guilty that I know that I won't be able to listen all day every day the case is on because I do need to work - eg I will be offline all day Wednesday. So it feels like on days like that it's a wasted slot that someone else could use.

But then again, it's a case scheduled for 15 days, they must know there will be some attrition amongst observers. Perhaps by the end of the week it may be worth asking again if the system is not running at capacity?

In thinking about the IT capacity and how the court is going to juggle the limited number of access links with the numbers on a day to day basis, something else has occurred to me.

I know that witnesses are not permitted to watch a hearing from the public gallery until they have finished giving their own evidence. That's very easy for the parties, their lawyers and the court to monitor in a physical space. But how can the court ensure that none of the witnesses (18 for the OU in this case?) are not watching the live stream sitting alongside someone who has obtained a link?

@CriticalCondition I suppose they rely on integrity.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving I wouldn't worry, I think it is just first come first served.

Is that of the self-identifying variety?

But how can the court ensure that none of the witnesses (18 for the OU in this case?) are not watching the live stream sitting alongside someone who has obtained a link?

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons people online were told that cameras should be on?

But cameras can be on, with one person in the frame. Yet another person could easily be sitting beside them, out of view of the camera but listening in...witnesses could easily do this!

That's an interesting thought. But I don't know how that works if you're not obliged to be and remain in view. The couple of observers in the rows of thumbnails who did leave their cameras on just had unpeopled views of bookshelves and the like. Unsurprisingly.

It will be interesting to see what line the judge takes on the camera thing when they're back on Wednesday or whether she just quietly drops it. It was so contrary to every other case where observers have been specifically instructed to turn off their cameras I wonder if she just got in a bit of a muddle.

Yeah - it's one of situations where you can easily think of ways round it but the system relies on integrity and threats of punishment if you don't comply. Like the "don't take recordings, screenshots" etc.

I'm in the kind of profession where integrity is important, so I've given and am using my own name to get the login, and used enough of my name to login (so they can match me with the request). It's not an unusual name so not outing, but if we have to have cameras on then I'm not sure how I'd feel about that - again relying on other online attendees to not take a screenshot.

I wonder if making a subject access request is worth the effort? How many requests were made to observe the case vs how many were granted? And what efforts were made to increase the capacity once the level of interest was known

That would be FoI (general data), not subject access (own data). But yes, it would be good to know.

I'm also wondering about the appropriateness of having the public gallery in full view of the camera. Yes, it's a public gallery and if you were there in the physical space the other people in the room could see you. But you could also see them. You can't see the person online who may have clocked your presence in the room or made an illicit screenshot from their device. And so some people may be reluctant to attend and observe in person. And so one aspect of poorly handled open justice is impinging on another.

It's not that tricky though and the court could do it so much better with properly sited cameras and microphones.

And surely it must be a fundamental principle of open justice that the judge of all people is visible to the public. Why is the camera not angled so we are able to see her? She was obviously in the room this morning.

It's because it doesn't impact the judges.
If this nonsense affected their ability to do their job, it would have been properly handled by now.

So, they don't care. It's not a very nice answer, but there it is.

For those asking about witnesses watching.

Every time I have been a witness at an ET we were allowed to watch the whole proceedings. I think you are confusing the protocols for a court hearing rather than a tribunal.

Thank you. I knew it was wrong as typing but couldn’t think of the right terminology (up since 2am with the baby so my brains are somewhat scrambled)

Ah, okay. Thank you. I'm vaguely recalling some warnings to witnesses in a previous case but had forgotten that there have been judicial reviews as well as ETs.

Today Tribunal Tweets were in court. Judge Young asked both counsels for their pronouns, which, given the context of this case, looks partisan and deliberately provocative. Tribunal Tweets have not yet been given permission to live tweet- if it’s denied, that would be a serious concern. Thank goodness Jo has Ben Cooper to represent her.

Poor Jo. All that money and the least you should be able to expect is the appearance of neutrality.

You're so right.

Does the Judge open every hearing like this, I wonder? Either way, it's a disgrace.

This is really worrying....surely the Judge has done some research on these parties and what the trial pertains to. And should know how asking fr pronouns comes across.
Am I wrong to perceive it as sort of hostile?

The warning to witnesses is when they are giving evidence and there is a break or it goes over 2 days they can’t talk to anyone about their evidence. Once they have concluded it’s fine for them to talk.

I assume this is to prevent coaching by their legal team.

Am I wrong to perceive it as sort of hostile?

No.

Shhh don’t say the name 🤫

Just imagine if people were asked what sex they are or if they have a disability or their ethnicity at the start of a court case. Why is this treated any differently? If people want to disclose their "pronouns" that should be up to them but to demand everyone do it is just absurd.