Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

And he was also denied anonymity early on in these proceedings 1) because he told 20,000 people on Defra Yammer that he was trans, and 2) he is unmistakably male.

Thank you @myladydisdainisyetliving and @terffert for your pasting from TT today. I am happy to have a go if needed. I was following on X for a time today but any tips welcomed>

I think I've also seen his picture. The one in a big dress with a sword?

That’s the one.

Thanks for the offer - most of these tribunal threads end up having someone who can cover during most points so the more volunteers the better. And if not, well anyone can still access TT via Nitter or X, it just makes it easier to discuss here if someone has c&p from X.

I use my laptop (Mac) - log onto both X and MN in Safari, select the text of the tweet and then "paste and match style" into MN. Keeps the formatting, relatively straightforward and minimal messing about. I do in batches every few minutes to avoid the MN server thinking I'm spamming because of my post frequency.

Ah, anime character. Colour me shocked.

@myladydisdainisyetliving Jo Phoenix's case started in 2023. There was a change to the Equal Treatment Bench Book in July 2024 and that covered pronoun use.

Thanks for the thread. I dont think this will get the same traction as the Sandie Peggie threads. Everyone knows a nurse and everyone can grasp why women dont want to undress in front of men but not everyone realises the importance of having a GC view in government departments. So hopefully not quite as much work for you.

Has the Defra barrister finished with this witness now? Will NC be next? 🍿

No, he just came to the end of a particular topic. He will still be questioning ST tomorrow.

Yup. The sword was an unexpected accessory but I should know better by now.

ST is coming across as so batshit I've had to remind myself that this isn't the cross examination. 😳

Despite the nonsense with the pronouns (although I do wonder if it's the judge covering his arse so that ST and the TRAs can't cry afterwards that it was too traumatising so proper evidence wasn't given), I think the judge is quite disbelieving of the shite ST is spouting. I may be totally off the mark, but some of the judge's comments to ST have read to me like he thinks ST is being ridiculous.

As an aside, I had the following ad come up on the previous thread and it made me laugh.

This IS the cross-examination by the Respondent; the direct examination got lost in the confusion about everyone having different versions of the witness statement.

Respondents barrister is trying to show DEFRA had sensible policies and procedures and doesn't necessarily have to challenge the Claimant's beliefs. Naomi's cross-examination may be a lot more aggressive.

Wah!
I have got this one proper confused, ffs.
Oh well, that explain things, thanks! 💐

If anyone else pops up to correct me consider yourselves thanked too.

It's confusing after listening to a Scottish case because the procedures are different. In this case there is a written witness statement, which is then just confirmed and we go straight into cross examination. In the Scottish cases there isn't, so the witness gets to give their evidence in chief(?) before the cross examination.

(I am the person who jumped in to do a little novice c&ping on the last thread, but on that old thread I had an unfamiliar nn!)

Thanks for all the hard work being done too keep everyone informed. 👏👍

Did swordsman Samantha resign or were he/she/it/they sacked?
Whispers quietly that it is a lot easier to follow the Scottish cases.

I am feeling a tiny bit sorry for the panel, because they presumably “sign up” expecting fairly straightforward bullying/wrong process/discrimination case(s) lasting for a week? Hopefully they are all booked into hotels with aircon (or maybe it isn’t so humid in Leeds)?

I did keep forgetting the person asking the questions was on ST's side... ST seems like ST could argue with an empty room.

ETA ignore this. I have now read further comments.

Claimant has banged on about a thread on here about him in November 2022, which I've searched for but can't find. Does anyone know where to find it?

It was very traumatic apparently and caused concern about his personal safety.

Oh. Missed the direct examination completely. I'll put it down to the heat.

Still reckon ST could argue with an empty room though!

There isn't a direct examination; the witness statement is the evidence in chief, so we go straight into cross.

This was the extent of the direct examination of ST as reported by TT

just corrections ans confirming statements

HH Name
C Samantha Tempest
HH It's Mrs Tempest, isn't it?
C Yes
HH To WS. It may be I have an electronic version.
HH / panel re version.
HH Sorry. Don't know how that happened. Best to use one with all the page numbers. My version is dated 12 June. Everyone else seems to be

HH working to 2 June version.
J [Asks C to look at para 21a] So we all have the wrong copy,
HH Yes
J We can use this version we all have on screens
HH My number of pages is 53 pp rather than 52
J Please confirm no other changes other than pg nos

HH My instructing sol say he doesn't believe so.
J It's difficult enough for this witness to give evidence without all this. Absolutely appalling.
AL I have version you and C have. Shouldn't be too many problems.
HH This updated version shared with Rs on 12 June.

J [to C] Using 52 pp WS dated 2 June.
HH Para 122. My pg 47
J May be our 46
HH What was the correction?
C I was threatened with half pay but never ended up with half pay
[They agree WS]

Thanks.

I'm still going to blame the heat.

(Twas the heatwave of 76 that gave rise to boiled beetle. Who knew 50 years later I'd be a boiled beetle all over again)

Is it this one, do you think?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4674002-sex-equality-and-equity-network-gender-crit-network-for-civil-servants?page=

There’s effectively three parties to this hearing who will all get their chance to ask questions of witnesses:

Claimant, ie ST, who is alleging that by allowing SEEN to exist, their employer is discriminating/ harassing/ harming them. (I’m afraid I lost track of the exact claim during the arguments this morning, they seem to have evolved quite a lot over time). Barrister is HH.
Respondent, ie RPA, ST’s employer, which is an organisation that’s seems to be both part of and separate from DEFRA. Again, the subtleties of who is whose employer and who has what duty of care and liability to whom are evading me, but probably will become clearer over time as we hear more witnesses. I expect it’s a civil service thing. “Arms length organisation” seems to be the key description. Barrister is AL.
Intervenor, ie SEEN (Elspeth), who have instructed Naomi as their barrister.

I expect that is why three weeks have been scheduled. Plus we know that Naomi, much as we love her, does over run on her allotted time so I’m not at all hopeful it will actually finish in three weeks.