Thread by @tribunaltweets

Resuming after lunch.
RO - addressing the time point as requested by the judge. There was further correspondence between C and the local authority after 24 February 2022. Then a preaction letter was sent in April 2022. 11 April respondent replied that they need more time than

envisaged in the pre-action letter. C then submitted a letter to court on 19 April and it was sealed on 23 April.
That is the chronology and we say it evidences sufficient promptness for the matter to proceed. Especially given the important matters of law and policy.

You also indicated that you hadn't received the authorities bundle and my apology for that.
J - I have it. Does AM have a copy?
RO - yes she does.
RO - the two important paras are 39 & 70. The first is Mr Justice Hayden expressing the dangers of transition by stealth and

the second about that particular case. And finally on page 13, below the heading 'direct work with pre-pubertal children and their families'. The next point it begins 'in cases in which a pre-pubertal child effects a social transition'. We rely on that to assert that social

transition is not a risk free exercise.
And finally (second finally) 'not all adolescents will benefit from social transition' and goes on for four bullet points to propose exactly the case.
AM: the defence position is that C is ideologically driven. Her claims were raised

initially how the proposed inclusion of the child in the school would impede her rights. C is only seeking to use safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding duty extends to all members of school staff including grounds staff and dinner ladies.

J - asked a question on excerpting a single sentence from a long document?
AM - C raised safeguarding concerns to the school, school responded. It doesn't mean that the person gets the outcome they want. C's views are ideologically driven and she is seeking to impose these

views on the child and the school. C's view is to prohibit social transition. Ideologically driven not to protect the child. Whistle blowing provisions do not entitle a whistler blower to any particular outcome. C's concerns were neither reasonable nor cogent.

Inconsistent with domestic law (GRA) and medical evidence. C accessed the child's personal information in violation of GDPR after she had written to the chair of governors and the chair responded. C obsessively trawled the school records for information to support her case.

AM conts - an audit of C's access to school records, accessing and surveilling information relating to Child X. Various dates, post dating the correspondence with the governors. No matters complained of to the school. Whatever the exceptions under GDPR they do not allow

C to snoop on the child. C doesn't have a legitimate interest and that's why believe she doesn't have standing. C began her campaign when she was notified that a child bullied out of chosen school for gender confusion issues. C said it was a breach of her rights.

C had to be suspended to prevent harm to Child X. C was threatening to 'out' X as their birth gender. According C standing is tantamount to handing the burglar the keys to the house.
RO - are you saying C breached court orders?
AM - I'm not suggesting that C breached orders.

AM - very briefly, on safeguarding arrangements. C's claim has modified substantially. It started out objecting to 'affirmation' and the claimant now says that D is obliged to adopt of not allowing social transition. I say 'on the basis of what'.

On the basis of evidence submitted in another trial. The matter is contentious. Neither D is an expert in this. The guidance issued to schools is silent. There is no legal obligation to condition response to a gender confused child based on psychological evidence.

Schools are waiting on guidance on this matter. This is not a child that is thinking about transition but about a child that has been bullied out of another school (implied for transition).
AM - (accidentally named head).
J - do not disclose the name

AM - head teacher evidence, no basis on which the school could have needed the psychological evidence or must adopt a policy of 'not affirming'. In this case, the local authority MASH (multi authority safeguarding hub) does not adopt an affirmation only model.

AM - this child has already socially transitioned at school prior to alleged safeguarding concerns being raised.
J - where do we see that?
AM - child attending in preferred gender from September, letter to governors dated October, is she suggesting the child be outed.

AM - further point on addressing co-morbidities before social transition permitted also would 'out' the child.
No way in which the school could be compelled to adopt a policy banning social transition or requiring psychological evidence.
[A technical problem presents itself]

[Further discussion - we are proceeding].
AM to continue. Evidence was mischaracterised the evidence, no reference to individual harm to the child. The matters only raised in the witness statement. The only thing that should be responded to is that expert evidence.

AM - presented hundreds of pages of evidence from another matter to the local authority and says 'this presents a safeguarding concern'.
AM - now on to political matters. The question is whether the school was indoctrinating pupils? There is not evidence that this occurred.

Stonewall did not come into the school, it was someone from the local authority that presented the training. Stonewall materials were provided to the staff. DfE own guidance lists Stonewall as a source of material.
No complaint had been made about the elements of the material.

No specific complaint has been made about the material. Where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, there should be balanced. No complaint was made about this material. There has been no indoctrination of pupils, no specific complaint has been made.

J - you're citing high level duties. Some must be more pointed about duties of school personnel.
AM - it may be that it can be breached in a matter of gender policy, but it is not here. The suggestion that because the school has some provided gender affirming materials

that they are indoctrinating students.
AM - on to the matter of time. C had a prompt response from governors and sat on that for 2 1/2 months. Then another month before she went to the local authority. Pre action letter only gave 6 days to respond. It was during Easter

holidays and it was difficult to timely respond. This is not a minor delay that could be excused. This is an inordinate delay. C could have issued and asked the court to stay and avoided any concerns about costs in that way.
For all those reasons permission should be refused.

J - thank you very much
RO - reading out letter to head; commenting on specific mental health problems that C had observed. C has complained about child X.
J - what do I take from that?
RO - C did bring the particular child's mental health to the attention of the school

AM - now retracting her statement, had not seen the letter
RO - similarly, complaint to local authority, reiterate my complaint is about safeguarding not just policy and procedure
The evidence seems to have been overlooked.

RO - addressing privacy point in relation to standing. The argument goes nowhere, it assumes what it is trying to prove. If the court finds that there is a risk to the child.
J - the point is I've made an order on reporting provisions, in order for the court to have a full view

of the issues, it intrudes on privacy of the child. Those in courtroom would inevitably be exposed to the information about the child.
RO - one of the issues the court must consider, in the interest of child X if no one else, is whether that child was put at risk by the actions

of the local authority and the school.
J - child x and parents are not a party to this action
RO - those types of matters occur all the time. Any inquiry into safeguarding must look at specifics.
J - any interest parties must be joined to the action.
RO - they may apply

to be joined but the enquiry is not to be derailed from its mission.
RO - fundamental abdication of the court's duty to consider matters of importance if you rule against me on this point.
J - let me write that down.
RO - yes, repeats.

RO - commenting on 'ideological points' of AM.
J - you don't need to trouble me on that point.l
RO - concluding, whatever is the outcome of this proceeding, C was concerned about the safeguarding of this particular child.
AM - responding. Complaints about mental health

were not particularised to this particular child.
J - I will give my ruling at 4:15 pm.
Court rises. Adjourned until 4:15 pm.

Legal arguments not well captured by above tweets related to the privacy rights of Child X should the matter proceed to judicial review. The mental health and state of the child would be discussed in open court. The opinions of the judge and AM on this point gave rise to RO

reply on fundamental abdication and follow on remarks. Apologies if the sequential tweets were unclear. We will be back with the judge's decision at 4:15.
End.