Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.
I will also 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

I've read it and it sounds just like the way he gave evidence. Clear, concise and to the point.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/24963/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

David Hallam's actual job at the time was Director for Floods and Water.

Here he is giving evidence to parliament on droughts and wild fires and water management in 2025.

Funny old world.

I am charmed by DH's paragraph 10: "As she had been off sick August 23 – January 24 she was not able to provide any evidence of harassment during that time." As opposed to, say "As she had been off sick ... she had not been harassed during that time."

I suppose that technically, given that the definition of harassment in the EA2010 is "unwanted conduct" that has the "purpose or effect" of blah blah, it might be technically possible to be harassed without being aware of it, if someone's conduct had the purpose of blah blah, but didn't have that effect e.g. because you were off sick? Can you declare conduct to be "unwanted" even if you didn't know about it, i.e. if you would not have wanted it, if you had known about it? All this seems a bit unconvincing... Any lawyers want to comment?

I'm behind again, so this is from the last thread.

ED said staff networks are based on EA protected characteristics. And in the case of a:Gender, it's 'protected characteristic +', where + includes supporters, gender fluid, DSD, identifying as trans without having any reassignment treatment, etc.

ED said Richie Heron not eligible as a detransitioner.

The EA protected characteristic is: "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." [My bold]

Nothing about 'unless they've undergone further processes to change them in the other direction'.

For those tying up the timeline - I am just going through David Hallam's but I wonder if a bit odd....

Tink was given "recommendations from the previous appeal (of 1st grievance), upheld on 16 February 2023"

She alleged that since this second grievance was raised in late June / July 2023 posts had continued to be made in online spaces by SEEN, which she perceived as harassment; and SEEN members were continuing to have conversations in a separate Viva Engage group which might also constitute harassment.

Tink was sick "August 23 – January 24 she was not able to provide any evidence of harassment during that time. She also said it was not reasonable that her rejection of the initial investigation options should cause the length of delay."

March 25, 2024 - individual case against Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley is dropped she applies to become an intervenor

Re length of timing to deal with the second grievance - remember Tink was off for six months during that time - DH says

• Tink rejected an external investigator
• Tink rejected the option of a collective grievance procedure which caused delays while those discussions took place;
• It also took time to identify a suitably experienced decision manager who then had two booked periods of annual leave
• The investigation did take approximately three months, but this was over the Christmas period which would have had an impact, and once the investigation report was made available on 19 February 2024, a decision was made and communicated on 3 April 2024.
• The time between presentation of the evidence (which the Claimant had the opportunity to consider and respond to) and the decision was a little over 6 weeks, which wasn’t in my view an excessively long period.

14 April 2024 - David Hallam met with Tink [This seems to me to be an error - I think this must have been 14 May??]

Tink appealed on 22 April 2024 to second grievance which had been heard by Steve Moore.

SEEN had in April 2024 incorporated a limited company in order to respond to this employment tribunal claim.

On 7 May 2024 the decision manager Steve Moore sent David Hallam his decision on the grievance

Tink sent two further emails on 14 & 17 May

I sent my decision to the Claimant on 21 May 2024. I do not recall any follow up communications with the Claimant, and I had no further nvolvement with these matters until contacted regarding this Tribunal.

This coupled with some of EDs statements are really disturbing, surely they can’t believe this just because some women said no. It’s deranged thinking if they actually believe it.

I think DH corrected the 14 April -> 14 May error before swearing to his statement.

Thanks for the summary. What it brings to my mind is that, given ST was off sick during most of the ten months this investigation process took, it could well be that anyone who thought about it hoped/assumed he simply wouldn't come back, and they'd never be asked what had happened to it.

@Justabaker - I am sorry I didn't keep a note - but there was an agreement in the Tribunal earlier this week that the claims and responses maybe would be provided. The onus was put on the parties I know - so there might be a delay but is that ringing any bells?

Thanks for all the work you do. I subscribe to your substack and appreciate all the hard work.

no notes and you are writing a response/letter/ email. No way, if professional.

What we have that can be shared publicly we've shared.

I will check with the case manager.

Thanks - I can take a look over the weekend to find the reference I am thinking off. Love the fact there is a case manager!

Handwritten notes, shredded when the letter is sent.

Senior civil servants know the importance of paper trails (or lack of).

Unfortunately for them DH they did indeed have their FT job and this was a burden on top. So they did minimum and it shows in their responses. And that has let everyone down. DH responses are weak ie y/n, not definite. That is actually not taking a process seriously and HH was right to challenge. By the way I think ST and ED's views are batshit and we all need to be very careful that an ET doesn't agree with their views. So proper consideration of process, however dull, is important.

If I made informal jottings and notes as I was reviewing the material and drafting the letter - straight to the shredder when I was happy with the letter. It should stand on it's own.

One of the challenges in my (previous) professional work is ensuring that the record of work is complete and no work product was in existence that wasn't in the record of work.

It really is!

Backtracking at least one thread, @murasaki and @Sinnerboy,not sure if you're aware that Naomi's mother and possibly father too also worked at Bletchley Park, so you're practically her cousins!

If I do a job I do it properly. And legal opinion if required by policy, and it might be. At bare minimum DH should have checked that ( i don't mean asked for it) it was followed and if the final recommendation deviated to look at why the original investigator deviated.

He did so little.

@socialdilemmawhattodo He did what was necessary. It was not necessary for him to retain any notes he made and not desirable to do so. I expect the legal advice changed the decision. A senior manager is not competent to, and does not have time to waste on, second guessing legal advice.

You will notice he was aware of Yammer but didnt use it.

I doubt you will agree - we'll agree to differ.

He was looking at the process. He did that minimally in my opinion. The sooner Trans ideology is out of govt and other the better. But I would still like staff to be competent.

with all respect you really do not understand the process. I have read his witness statement and it is pretty clear what he was tasked to do and what the defined parameters were.

The court cannot interfere with that. HH was IMHO on a fishing exercise to see if he was a GC sympathiser, and got nowhere. It was clear from his WS that he was simply interested in SM conclusions, and further that SM showed no bias.

Phew, just about caught up. Not sure what to make of DH.

I respect that any employee has the right to raise a greivance or appeal, and for this to be dealt with in a timely manner.

I agree with the timeline @SexIsReal has not long since posted so it doesn't seem like it was a tremendously long amount of time.

Perhaps DH should have made sure that there were no previous greivances, but he was an open book that his responsibilities were about the process of the current greivance, not the outcome. Tink had 2 opportunities to have this handled sooner and rejected them.

I couldn't really follow HHs line of questioning.

Why does the possibility of ST and ED having communicated with a shared lawyer seem to have been rug swept?

The legal advice that may have been sought is privileged information the complainant has no right to access that.

Both Sinner and Naomi are better than my actual cousin who is a blue haired nightmare who refuses to believe she is in a lesbian relationship as her girlfriend is apparently a man. But she does live in Canada. My uncle and aunt just sigh and moan at me and my dad about the madness....

So I'll swap her for Sinner and Naomi any day of the week.

@Jimmyneutronsforehead

Remember in the middle of all this - two employment tribunals were up and running.

Tink was suing Elspeth - she issues a fund raiser early 2024 and advises case is dropped in May 2024.

PQ was suing Andreas - April 2024 and there was a no fee settlement of all claims and case desisted in April 2026.

So Tink and his paralell but same co-conspirator against the oppression of facts and lanyards had lawyered up, raised proceedings etc etc - while Tink was at home on the taxpayers dime - and papers filed a few months after his return to work.

David Hallam would have know legal proceedings were afoot - the very fact that one point of Tink's grievance was that SEEN became a company in April 2026 and it was to legally defend against the employment tribunal Tink was running. Muppet!

No way David didn't get legal advice on his activity. And lawyers would advise - least said soonest mended - so don't leave a long paper trail David.

Lots of comments about how DH approached and documented his review. But without sight of the internal procedure or process it can only be speculation?

There may even be an instruction to destroy personal notes, for whatver reason. He has done a gap analysis to check the internal grievance procedure has been followed, It doesn't need reams of notes or workings.

I suspect a career civil servant, and a Director, is well versed in critical and logical thinking. His WS and evidence today showed a concise and professional approach.