Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 8

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-7

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.

Please 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.

Hope very much she will be properly remunerated for her work!

Also, the delay means that the case, any adverse publicity, and the wait for a decision will nicely span JH's boldly unpaid career break, and provide bold food for thought.

I so so so miss the laugh button......

Gift link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/21271f924a735cd1

The spreadsheet did not form part of the original bundle
HH has spent the last two days going over the spreadsheet of doom (SSD) in minute detail
How could asking so many SSD questions form part of HH's strategy if she did not know that the SSD would be admissible?

Complete speculation begins

What if HH used 'the judge will never accept the SSD' as an excuse to guide her client away from the strategy of minute inspection only to find that when she did ask the Judge said 'no problem'

I wonder if HH was completely thrown by the inclusion of the SSD and had to rapidly make up some questions overnight based on her Client's instruction to use the strategy of minute inspection?

Perhaps CA's answers contained so much common sense and clear lack of bias that HH has had to run the tribunal clock out to win herself a few months to retarget her case?

End of speculation

I suspect in December we will witness a masterclass in the use of an electronic spreadsheet in cross-examination, and it will look effortless.

I LOVE a game of speculation.

I don't think she was running out the clock on purpose. As some other MNs pointed out earlier, the more she dug into the SSD, or SHOOM, the more work she did in favouring the Rs through CA's clear and logical responses. She couldn't help but see that but having gone down this route she couldn't finish with zip, nor could she stop without having gone through all the ones her client wanted her to go through, so she kept on going in the hope that exhaustion would lead CA to say something intemperate or GCish to a degree that would undermine her credibility. She passed all those tests with flying colours.

And she was most definitely floundering about in the weeds of the SSD/ SHOOM and had to know she was doing herself no professional favours by continuing EXCEPT that it became increasingly clear to us all, I think, that this was not a mess she was making. She was following the instructions of her client.

And so I think you might be onto something re the lack of planning around the SSD/ SHOOM but I would speculate a little further.

As we know from the outset, HH was all befuddled because she was only recently appointed. I suspect she didn't really have the time or the desire to wrangle the SHOOM but I also suspect ST thought the numerical imbalance told the whole story without having any need to go to the SHOOM.

However, I think it became clear to ST whilst being cross-examined that no one was buying the numerical imbalance as proof of anything (as has now been proved it was, in fact, only proof that MANY TRAs were being aresholes on Yammer) and, clocking that, he then immediately instructed HH to introduce it. (She has said a couple of times that she wasn't expecting to rely on it so heavily – eg when she would delay the court by getting lost – so this would make sense. I'm sure if we went back to TTs of ST's testimony we might note breaks where ST could have given such instruction.)

Because he has been soooo used to the TRAs being OUTRAGED by the posts from SEEN and so OUTRAGED that their posts have been moderated that he genuinely believes this is a tactic that will succeed.

I think there were times the J has shown himself willing to consider a couple of things raised as evidence of imbalance, but I also think that it is reasonable for him to do that in order to demonstrate his reasoning through a close examination of the detail. I suspect what has happened in addition to those tiny elements that might, to a judge inclined to do be anal about process and not at all forgiving of process in the paradigm of chaos produced by TRAs, support the claim are the emerging points CA managed to introduce about how GC are misunderstood. It is only that misunderstanding that justifys the C's claims at any level and if you are to look fairly at both sides you would have to take that into account. I suspect it is the first time J has heard that.

Which is frustrating as it is so core and yet he so often is ready to dismiss 'philopsophical' aspects. Yet is the continued, purposeful and ever-amplified 'misunderstanding' not the Sisyphean heart of the whole?

Could any of our lawyers comment on what it's like for a barrister with a foolish client? When and how do they have to follow instructions, and when and how not?

Interesting reflections. Tink passed several notes to HH today and HH requested and was granted two brief chats outside the room with her client. I haven’t seen that happen before in tribunals I’ve watched, although there has often been ‘take instructions’, they seem to have been in the breaks, not during live cross examination. Just musing out loud.

So Tink, to clear, you've brought the SS to the fight and Naomi and team now have 7 months to interrogate it and the lasting memory will be of Naomi's queries put to Caroline.

Top work that!

We have seen and heard that NC uses phone messaging to take instructions during hearings (this was explained during the Leonardo tribunal).

Maybe Tink wants to ensure there would be absolutely no trace of whatever he needed to say to HH.

People who engage in doxxing and snitching on others can become quite anxious that others may do the same to them, no matter how unlikely it is to actually happen.

That makes a lot of sense, thank you ☺️

I haven't been able to follow all of the tribunal in real time, and every time I jump back into it I get the same feeling of shock that Tink is the Claimant and not the Respondent. As annoying as it is to follow, HH really does seem to be doing her best for him, under very difficult circumstances. I'd want to escort him from the room by his ear.

Any client-counsel communications are privileged. You’d have to be on a high level of paranoia to worry about that.

That does fit with the whole premise of the Claimant's case.

And that is entirely possible.

I wonder if Tink is a difficult person for a barrister to work with. I'd imagine that normally the client sits back and lets the barrister run the case as after all they are the expert. From what was said above I'm now imagining Tink passing notes saying "don't do it like that, do it like this", and "go back to this point". Is it possible that a lot of the repetition had been on Tinks direct instruction?

I was also idly musing if this break was to allow ST to try to settle, and I was thinking that he's made such a hash of the case, would Defra settle at this stage? Is there any CS rule about settling rather than going all the way?

The room is very small and everyone is sitting very close together. Plus the desks are strewn with microphones. Despite sitting directly behind HH, with everyone in such close proximity and the possibility that it might be picked up by a mic, I'd want to go into the corridor too.

I was also idly musing if this break was to allow ST to try to settle, and I was thinking that he's made such a hash of the case, would Defra settle at this stage? Is there any CS rule about settling rather than going all the way?
If the claimant and the respondent want to settle, can the intervener stop that?
Like when the proposed settlement looks like 'we accept we should have done more to reign in those harassing gcs, we tried but accept it was not enough'?

I am just speculating of course!

But TBF, many of us operate with a high level of paranoia as regular online observers. There was a point in the Peggie tribunal where the judge observed someone's feet (IIRC!) on screen and ordered everyone to check their cameras were switched off, and many of us frantically dived at our laptops imagining we were the ones at fault.

Tink has spent nearly 3 years on his high horse and is having his ego rapidly deflated live in court. He is likely to be birthing kittens for some time to come, despite his admitted lack of ovaries.

I wonder what will replace the strappy sundresses.? Won’t be exactly the weather for another Pollyanna revivalist outfit. I’m still trying to picture the row of business attired professionals with a sundress clad trans women in their midst, hardly victim attire. Was that really what he thought the average womanly civil servant of his age would wear to proceedings or is gravitas and respect for the legal process not in the trans remit? In general what would a barrister be most likely to advise on dress code in this context?

I’m imagining SEEN would need to bring their own claim if they were shut down as a result of eg that.

It will be Christmas so lots of opportunity to stand out.

I have FINALLY caught up, I was threads behind. Huge thank you to all the C&P'ers! I can't believe this is going to drag on for months...

Christmas fairy outfit with spinny skirt and lots of sparkles!!

Oh @FarriersGirl, it is waaaay too early in the morning for that imagery.

Brain bleach please!