Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #5

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gender Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22-23 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Miren Sagues (MS): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katie Horburgh (KH): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2
Thread #3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990903-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-3
Thread #4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991883-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4

She wasn't better. She admitted she knew about Forstater and ignored it as irrelevant. That's more damning in a way than not knowing about it. It's wilfully negligent and arrogantly believing it's ok to do this rather than simply being ignorant. Her privilege which allows her to think like this is relevant. If you think it's not you are missing how scandals happen.

Speaking as a non lawyer I thought she was clearly better. Whether the judge will agree, I don't know.

They claim to be independent of the Scottish Government but the Scottish Government ministers appoint the board and “Scottish Ministers have ultimate responsibility for policy in relation to charity law and Third Sector policy. We work closely with the Scottish Government's Charity Law Team.”

And we know where the Scottish Government stand.

I suspect in Scotland this is a forlorn hope. Funding for the women's sector is already dependent upon including TW and shows no sign of changing. Unless this case generates so much bad publicity that it is a pink leggings moment - but even then the TRAs have just continued getting dangerous men into women's prisons in secret

One thing I don't think is clear is that the last witness said that she ignored everything in the disciplinary about transphobia allegations and concentrated only on the policies. How can we believe that is true? She is clearly a true believer and I cannot believe that all the transphobia allegations didn't have any sway at all over her and she stayed completely objective. She showed herself not to be objective in her answers. She would clearly agree that RA was being transphobic. So how can anyone believe that she put all that aside and was truly objective in her actions as a trustee?

RedToothBrush · Today 09:03

She wasn't better. She admitted she knew about Forstater and ignored it as irrelevant. That's more damning in a way than not knowing about it. It's wilfully negligent and arrogantly believing it's ok to do this rather than simply being ignorant. Her privilege which allows her to think like this is relevant. If you think it's not you are missing how scandals happen.

I think that's a good assessment of her.

One thing that would annoy me if I were a barrister is not being able to argue with these witnesses. They are not trying to make witnesses admit they were wrong - a witness could give answers indicating a complete misunderstanding or poor behaviour, be left unchallenged by the barrister and leave court thinking they were perfectly in the right, but those answer could condemn the organisation and enable that barrister to win the case.

A barrister might need to show an employee was racist - it is not for them to try and make the racist see the error of their ways; that would be down to the judgement and the employee’s boss.

She wasn't better. She admitted she knew about Forstater and ignored it as irrelevant. That's more damning in a way than not knowing about it.
Did NC get that point across though? If she did then I didn't pick up on it.

I can well imagine NC feeling a bit frustrated that she didn't manage to land a knockout question on that witness.

Or maybe I've just watched too many courtroom dramas and the judge will have taken note anyway?

She may raise it in closing submissions. In April

There are 2 aspects to how well someone performs on the stand: what they say, and how well they say it.

The last witness may have done better than others on the latter - remaining composed and speaking fluently.

But in terms of revealing personal and organisational prejudice and process failures, if I were in DH's shoes I would not think she had done well.

I can well imagine NC feeling a bit frustrated that she didn't manage to land a knockout question on that witness.

Knockout questions, like the Spanish for non-binary - are great for Twitter. And, as you say, for courtroom dramas. But building a case is not about what makes the audience gasp.

The big rocks that make up Stonehenge are impressive, but with lots of little, carefully shaped rocks you can build Notre Dame.

To mark the day/night that's in it, I opened my book of Robert Burns poetry at random and it was his great ode to liberty, fraternity, and equality:
For a’ that, and a’ that,
Their tinsel show, an’ a’ that;
(all together now-)
A Man’s a Man for a’ that.
😁

This is a stupendous post.

And, to me, looks like a completely comprehensive summing up of the issues. And yes, that's before you even get started with the trans ideology part of it.

It takes real skill, red, to interpret everything these witnesses say, all the fumbling, the fake ignorance, the attempts to deflect, as well as all the actual answers, and turn it into this beautifully concise list.

it should be publicised far and wide.

Yeah I think that's what I'm trying to figure out: how much ice does a poised, confident witness cut with a judge (as opposed to a jury)?
And if NC didn't manage to draw out from the witness an admission that she knew about the Forstater judgement and didn't act on it, how much does that matter? Can we assume the judge will draw that conclusion anyway or legally can they only use what's stated in the proceedings?

She may raise it in closing submissions. In April

I recall Ben Cooper's closing submissions for previous tribunals. Desperately hoping I've a diary I can clear for NC's.

what, again, was observed and recorded was the absence of key figures as witnesses for ERCC. This will, I assume, be noted by the judgement.

This is how I see it panning out

ERCC : offers to settle
RA : I will accept that, with a clear statement that I am not transphobic
ERCC : no way, we would never state you are not transphobic because EVERYTHING IS TRANSPHOBIC
Tribunal : RA is clearly not transphobic, now get her paid off
ERCC : The Court Is Transphobic

poised, confident witness cut with a judge (as opposed to a jury)?

Some of the witnesses in Allison Bailey's tribunal were poised and confident.

Unfortunately, I couldn't attend much of Jo Phoenix's tribunals but I'm sure that some of those had a seniority-appropriate level of self-confidence and experience in fluent public speaking.

There are people with charisma and lakes of self-confidence. MW comes to mind. But the story above about separating out and browbeating others at social events, and then bringing together for public shaming, tells me about other characteristics.

NB: I've described my meetings and attendant difficulties in some sectors. I've not liked the critiques of KH's self confident manner of speaking. I've heard too many admonitions that people should be mindful that being articulate is off-putting to others in a meeting. (Nobody has ever described a remedy other than being mindful.)

ERCC is the target here, not KH, no matter how despairing we may be at this glimpse into the possible future of Scottish politics and the way that views and ideologies which damage women and children are held so close by many young people.

If we found her slippery, with glib soundbite answers to the questions, shoehorning her PR for ERCC and MW into the proceedings, the Panel may well have done so too. I wonder if NC was careful not to be seen to skewer a young ‘un (and she could have done so, easily, although time was a consideration). The points were made: here is a very young woman - however intelligent and engaged, fresh out of university, running something she had almost no experience for and almost certainly without good oversight, having a questionable level of training and legal advice, not seeming to be aware of the wider remit and real responsibilities of being a board member (the conscience of the org, being prepared to challenge the management on difficult issues, etc), being put forward to the Tribunal in the absence of MW and Nico, parroting the party line and following policy without questioning the policy.

And not forgetting NC’s politician quip.

I hope the Panel saw through all of that - just like we did.

If I was a judge I would have much less sympathy for a poised confident witness than someone who was rattled and lost. If someone is rattled then lies tend to be more apparent and you can take their answers more at face value. If someone is poised and slippery with their answers I would be listening much more carefully to what they are trying to avoid saying.

It's not about sympathy though is it? Or if it is, it shouldn't be. It should be about the strength of their case in law, surely?

Sympathy is the wrong word, I agree

same.
My impression is that KH was very poised answering questions because she had obviously been coached to within an inch of her life on what to say, and then when she couldn't answer to come back with "not answering that" kind of thing. When i see that, i see someone who is parroting a party line and unable to think for themself. I would wonder if they were in the right job at the right age and capable of taking part in a disciplinary investigation independently.

For the other witnesses it strikes me that they are wobbly because they really want to tell the truth, they also really want to believe they are the good guys. So when the questioning goes in a direction that they know, deep within themselves, to be exposing the emperor's willy for the world to see, they stutter and look incompetent. I am very sure that they honestly believe they are doing/saying the right thing in terms of colleagues and organisation. But they have completely lost sight of centering the service users because of that.

I thought that KH came across, like a politician, as having a ready soundbite for every question but not really considering the question nor the impact on service users at ERCC. The previous witnesses had drunk the kool aid, yes, but I do think there was some pause when NC talked about the potential impact on service users. There was a chink, they do seem, through the gender ideology haze, to have some level of understanding that they are there to help the service users (though clearly that's impossible to do with ERCC policies as they are).

KH was all about process and policy being followed but didn't seem to question at all whether the process and policy was fit for purpose for the service users of ERCC or operating within the law. She seemed to fail to recognise that this is her primary aim as a trustee - to question whether the organisation is fulfilling its core objectives and not doing anything illegal within a wider legal framework including duties and responsibilities of Charities, safeguarding, EA 2010. She seemed to think that following policy and procedure of the organisation was enough. But this is the opposite of what trustees are supposed to do.

It seems to me the policies suggest the organisation is really now all about pushing trans ideology rather than helping rape victims. KH didn't question that. At all.

Was there any disclosure of the worknest advice as I do wonder what it was as we have heard conflicting things from witnesses. You'd think if they advised against their in-my-opinion discriminatory actions they'd be keen to put the record straight.

Not to mention the 'admin error' - surely all this could affect their business? I feel that they should have right to reply.

Legal Feminist have a good blog on duties of Trustees:

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2023/02/06/governance-and-groupthink/