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.

Quite probably.

Anyone who's listening live, can I just ask, it seems as if SM is not using ST's "preferred pronouns", is this correct?

Whose “professional privilege”?

It's an odd way of working. To write a 'draft' decision from the perspective of the Claimant without reference to the evidence, send it off to the case worker to lick it into shape re process and advise on legals and then send out the result that comes back.

But it's not unbelievable. He's got more important things to do (flooding) and that's what the case worker is for.

I hope the lawyers can clarify what the redaction is in the break. I think that would answer the question on how credible his explanation is and that's why the judge is pressing to know.

I can see why ST was pissed with them.

Parties to legal action are permitted to redact legal advice they have received. If this is a big chunk of advice, it may very well say, this is contrary to the Equality Act, this may be discriminatory against ST but if it is, then the whole Progress/LGBTQ dominance is also discriminatory towards GC people. So go back and change it or you have to ban it all.

And when SM said, but what do I say if I’m asked about it, they said, tell them it was your version of ST’s point of view.

I am speculating, but if something like this was advised, it would explain why a big chunk is redacted. TBH, I am shocked that the judge appears to be saying he should see it.

The process of coming to a conclusion when faced with a mass of evidence alongside a subjective account is messy, and anyone who's ever done this knows that your thinking changes as you work through it all, that it's a highly iterative process.

That could be what happened. But I'd like a look at that draft to better understand if he really was convinced of ST's claims at that point, or if HH is nitpicking certain words to twist the meaning of what he wrote back then.
Without that it's impossible to tell.

I don't think the judge is asking to see it. He just wants to know whether it is legal advice and therefore ok to redact.

Do we have his WS?

Because it could be, for example, advice to lie if asked about the process, instead? I guess there could be a fine line about what is legal advice.

I haven't seen his WS yet. In the past I think TT have put them up when the relevant witness has finished being questioned - not sure whether that reflects when they get them, when they are allowed to put them up, or when they have time to!

Yes, without seeing the document itself it's difficult to know whether HH is misrepresenting a clear draft/brain dump/starting point.

I absolutely agree but we haven’t seen the evidence and as @Ereshkigalangcleg points out AL said professional privilege not legal privilege. If professional privilege is HR advice to Deciding Officer that is different.

Thank you, I hadn’t appreciated the difference.

I understand why the judge might be annoyed in that case.

I am ridiculously tied up with stuff today, grateful as always to TT, the cut and paste team and the commentary.

Just catching up...

If the tribunal finds that there were flaws with Defra's handling of the grievance because of the time taken, inconsistencies etc, could they rule on that but still also say that it wouldn't be a reasonable outcome for SEEN to be shut down?

From TT:

^This is part 2 of the morning hearing 6th July 2026 in Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency. Part 1 of the morning is t.co/ov1ZBDjO4C^

The court is at present taking a 15 minute break, after which Helen Hogben KC (HH) barrister for the claimant will continue cross-examination of Steve Moore (SM), a witness for the Respondents.

[Hearing is resuming]

HH: This email from EC to you is CC'd to someone - can you remember who? Not name, but role?
AL: I think, redacted for a reason.
J: And won't take us anywhere.
HH: Re other redaction - am going to think more about it, but not now.

J: If you raise it we'll deal with it obviously
AL: My instructions are that there has been no challenge to it thus far.
[a bit more discussion between the lawyers and judge]

HH: p986 the C's second grievance.
HH: One of things C is saying is, that because of failure to uphold earlier recommendations was still exposed to offensive comments. Inc the "What is a woman" film by Matt Walsh,
SM [reading C's complaint re this]

If this man wins, I shall leave the civil service. The crowing would be absolutely unbearable.

and I’d make it very clear in my exit interview why I was leaving.

I imagine so, he might win on some of the points but not others.

Yes. I haven’t seen the list of agreed issues but it is feasible the judgement could find DEFRA/RPA didn’t follow process, harassed/discriminated against ST, but that the appeal recommendation about SEEN was not lawful/reasonable.

Its why EDW as intervenor is so important.

I don’t see why his being distressed would automatically have to lead to consequences for SEEN. They can quite easily have done nothing wrong but this manipulative man be “distressed” that he didn’t get his own way and his cutted up pear.

From TT:

HH: Did you look at the post itself, p875?
SM: Yes I did
HH: p989, C raises specific concerns - says MW vocal against LGBT rights, describes what MW says in the film, that docs doing GR youth surgeries are like Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

HH: Outcome letter doesn't mention this at all?
SM: Yes it does, I discuss moderation of posts.

HH: p1433, this is your email covering the outcome letter which is p1434, you don't engage with offensive nature of MW post
SM: I don't comment on any individual posts - I talk about the control of the Viva Engage platform.

HH: Did you not think it important to look at the material and how offensive to trans ppl? Did you look at the material
SM: At the post.
HH: Did you research MW?
SM: No, I was looking at the controls DEFRA had in place.

HH: You didn't Google or look at Wikipedia re MW?
SM: No

Please tell me the court isn't going to assume Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information.

I don't understand why talking about Matt Walsh's film is offensive. It's not like ST was forced to watch it. Were there similar discussions about GI films? That BBC series about Paris Lee or that recent film that was discussed as being Oscar worthy, for example.

ST being distressed means nothing by itself. Was he being reasonable?