, 178 tweets, 53 min read
My Authors
Read all threads

10.10. am

Ready in Court 5.

wish list for today

Counsel who can project.

Now starting with counsel for CoP again.
Lists things that he will cover this morning.
In reverse order to counsel for HM.

Start - issue of communication to whom.
And the issue of context of communication. If to be hate incident must be hostility. It is clear that communication can be by victim or any other person. EG disabled adult comes off bus, arrives at day centre and tells staff of incident of abuse. #FairCopJR
The disabled person didn't understand but staff does.

Judge - but that isn't the same situation. Is that like the situation where someone goes out looking for things to be offended by? ... she had a choice about how she reacted to someone showing her.
Judge - I am not being facetious but she is looking for things to be offended by. Doesn't proportionality work differently, as opposed to someone who is 'truly' a victim, who has not sought out things to be exposed to? <KEY ISSUE> #FairCopJR
Def Counsel - complainant clearly felt genuinely offended. Twitter communications are directed at being shared and passed around - hence distinction between posters and leaflets. The nature of the mode of communication is directed at quick expansion #FairCopJR
Def counsel - this policy is directed to protect. Not just individuals but 'communities' <BUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE A COMMUNITY? HOW DO I JOIN?> #FairCopJR
Judge - can we look at the actual document, the actual record.
Def Counsel <warily> yes
<shuffling bundle>
Def Counsel - terminology on forms. I can't speak to Humberside doc
Judge - PC Gul has filled this in. But he doesn't have authority to record. I want to see the actual document entered onto the data base please. .. which bit do police fill in?
<seems to be first two boxes>
Judge <tetchy> who fills in what!
Humberside counsel takes him through it.

<At least 28 pages to this form! Crikey!>
Judge - WHY has this document been redacted?
Humberside - we appreciate this may have been over redacted. Only thing that should be redacted is complainants identity
Humberside - on 15th Jan PC Gul records he spoke to 'the defendant' about the tweets.
Judge - may I have the unredacted document
<handed up> #FairCopJR
Back to CoP counsel.
<Judge's face is interesting. Pity we can't take pictures>

Points have been made about visits to workplace etc. but look at what policy says about response at pg 369. Recognises sensitive nature of this. #FairCopJR
Def Counsel - policy records that it is important that the police do not 'over react' to non crime incidents, which could undermine community confidence in police.

<NEXT UP - what religion IS the Pope again?>
Def counsel. Next point. Suggestion yesterday of issue belief. New policy moves on....

Judge - lets pretend there isn't a new policy and deal with this one.
<so is this argument conceding that current policy is rubbish and the 'new one' will be better?>
Def Counsel - you have the new policy and can see what it says about proportionality.
<Judge may issue draft judgment on issue of 'belief' only>
Def Counsel - seems now to be submitting that court must take into account international law and practice of European States.

Judge - thank you. I think I probably know enough to know about how European courts treat proportionality.
Judge - sorry what is your fourth point?
Def Counsel - that was my fourth point.

Def counsel - now talking about system of recording

Or something

Judge - you are not saying as a matter of law this document can never be disclosed?

<we are now apparently on the DBS disclosure point>
Def Counsel - wants to show Judge why the documents back up what he asserts - that this record will (never?) or only rarely be disclosed via DBS <and thus risk your chance of getting a job etc>
Def Counsel bundle bingo

"I can't find the pagination I am afraid"

Young lawyers - KNOW YOUR BUNDLE

Judge - the way this works, someone requests, wants to check a person who is applying for a job with children etc. Starting point is - what is purpose of request and that conditions what police have to put in. So no point showing me other points first.

Def Counsel - thank you
<phrases you don't want to hear from your judge - 'the way this works...'>
Judge - not trying to be difficult but need to test this proposition that this will NEVER be disclosed... lets suppose HM applies for a position bringing him into contact with vulnerable groups... and police hold this record. That would be disclosed?
Def counsel - I WILL answer your question, but first lets talk about something else

<KLAXON YOUNG LAWYERS. If a Judge asks you a question. Answer it immediately>
Def counsel talking about other stuff

Judge reads - this guidance does not fetter police taking decisions in accordance with the law

Def Counsel ... looking at headings. Information should be of sufficient gravity to justify its inclusion. Disproportionate to disclose simply poor behaviour... must be relevant to the job applied for #FairCopJR
If the job involved caring for transgender people <what an exciting job that would be!> then it would be relevant. We are not saying 'never'...

Judge its a bit of strange submission to say it falls into category of poor behaviour. Its been recorded as a hate incident
<phrases you don't want to hear from your judge 'this is a bit of a strange submission'>
<I salute the bravery of Def Counsel at least. The submission appears to be that HM behaviour so disgusting it must be recorded as 'hate' but would be so trivial it should not be disclosed via DBS unless he wants a job 'caring for transgender people'>
Judge - suppose HM applies for job as the CEO of a charity that works with transgender people and they seek that information to be disclosed... you cannot say 'never'.

Def counsel <flounders> its like tweets, he doesn't know where they will be disclosed.
Judge - you say these recordings are to prevent escalation. Allowing someone to apply for job with transgender charity if they hate transgender people, risks escalation.

Def counsel - perhaps we are at cross purposes.

Judge - I am sure it is my fault.

<o dear>
Judge - is this just a statistical recording exercise, or does it have consequences down the line? HM counsel says it is NOT just statistical exercise but potential down the line for further disclosure.

HM Counsel confirms he is indeed saying this.
Def counsel - the point is that it will ONLY be disclosed if it is proportionate and right according to human rights.

<So HM is safe unless he wants to start 'caring for the transgender community>
<I am not making any of this up. I wish I were>
There's more but frankly I've given up now.
Judge - HM applies for a job in a school where there are a number of transgender children. They would be vulnerable wouldn't they?

Def Counsel - seems to be saying police can't disclose it or it would be unlikely <SO WHAT IS THE POINT>
The information must go to risk of harm to a group.

Judge <tetchy plus plus> I just don't understand that. Why is it not disclosable. Give me an example. #FairCopJR
Def Counsel tries to use Judge as example and gets the name wrong.
Judge 'I understand'.

<I hope he does>
Defence Counsel - this is in statement of Mr Tucker

Judge - I know. I have read it.... complaint is that HM has attacked community. So you are in territory of harm to others

Judge - the complainant thinks HM tweets are transphobic. I commented yesterday that is a strong word

Def Counsel - she is not my client

Judge - I put it to you to refute proposition that someone might consider these tweets pose risk of harm
<CoP want cake, to eat it and then sell it to us as lovely fresh cake. You can't demand recording of 'hate' and then submit it would rarely be disclosed>
Judge - I am familiar with the jurisprudence so you can take this quite quickly

<Junior counsel - don't lecture judges about the law unless they expressly ask you>
Def counsel - wants to take Judge to a case about something. As closest factual case we can get to this, no case is exactly the same. 'of the 60 or so authorities before you' (!!)
<60 authorities eh? Either someone is over charging or the police needed to concede early doors that this was a lot more complex than they would have liked it to be>
Not sure what case this is but it seems to be about someone wanting to have a debate about homosexuality. They got a criminal conviction?
<this is interesting perspective on open justice. Just how hard it is to follow submissions when you don't have the bundle>
Judge - don't skate over this! its very important - reads - leaflets were placed in children's lockers by people who didn't attend the school. This is extremely important! young people exposed to offensive leaflets... if you read on that shows why no Article 10 violation!
Judge - The complainant CHOSE to read the Tweets.
Def counsel - twitter is by nature a technology which is easy to disperse

Judge - taking risk genie out of bottle and you can't control where it goes

Def Counsel - dispersal is inherent
Judge - I can see why you have cited this, helpful, as far as it goes. But none of HM tweets accuse TG people of spreading disease, he didn't trespass on school property... a number of very obvious factual distinctions. #FairCopJR
Judge - do you accept the mere fact of being telephoned and told a hate incident is recorded and your personal details stored, that this is an interference in Article 10 terms

Def Counsel Um... we say 'no' but if it is its 'very low level'

Judge if purpose of recording is to avoid escalation then police will tell the person its been recorded? <suppressed laughter in court>

Judge - this is an important issue, I just want to know what your position is.... Is it your position that recording and informing is interference?

Def Counsel - NO.
Def counsel - there is no sanction here

Judge - If the State action in response to freedom of expression has as a factual consequence a chilling effect, even if not a sanction it is an interference?

Def counsel - we take issue with 'chilling effect'.
Def counsel - we haven't been able to find a case where there is a sanction

Judge - even having to print a right of reply is capable of being an interference. That isn't a 'sanction' in sense we understand it #FairCopJR
Def counsel disparages text books

Judge - I have written several text books

<o dear>
Judge where a policy is capable of being operated lawfully or unlawfully -

Def counsel - the policy is lawful!

Judge - <recoils> Your point is straightforward. Policy requires entry on data base. That's as far as it goes.
Judge - I am not saying NO purpose in recording. I do accept that.

Def counsel - the primary purpose is to record and monitor the area

Def Counsel - the police can't go out on every call.
Final point on chilling effect - sets out legal approach in skeleton argument. Foreseeability, issue of discretion. In short ... <I then lost track>
Judge - this is relatively well traversed territory

<Hints given. Should be taken>
Confusion now about which part of Def's skeleton argument he wishes to direct Judge.
But now we seem be back to likelihood of tweets causing widespread public offence?
This appears to be the case relied upon by the CoP, where offensive leaflets placed in school children's lockers. Judge has noted 'very obvious' factual distinctions between their behaviour and that of HM hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-109046"]}
Sorry, link doesn't seem to work - its CASE OF VEJDELAND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
@FionneOrlander Judge - help me with this issue I was pondering overnight.
I understand your case on why policy is lawful in a classic targeting victims sort of way. The young black man walking down the street being racially abused.
But how does the policy cater for the sort of situation here?
@FionneOrlander Judge - where someone CHOOSES to expose themselves to information they find offensive. She was not targeted as a young black man walking down the street. I don't doubt she found it offensive. But how does policy cater for that and does it make a difference?
@FionneOrlander Defence - I have to take issue with that categorisation. Its the nature of the media. If someone gets a retweet, I may see something sent to anyone, its part of mode of commutation of tweeting. #FairCopJR
'that much is obvious'

@FionneOrlander Judge - can see that tweets may end up being seen by someone else. But lets just go back and look at complainant's evidence. She sort of implies that she is not on Twitter herself - I was alerted to these comments... doesn't expressly say but implication they were printed off
@FionneOrlander Judge - so the point is that your policy, generally speaking, the nature of Twitter is that people who weren't intended to see it, will see it and are offended.

Def Counsel - purpose of policy is to protect communities not individuals. Its about non crimes.
@FionneOrlander Def Counsel has to be prodded from behind to say something... not sure his heart is in this?
@FionneOrlander Def Counsel - does that make sense?

Judge - it makes sense but I am not sure I agree with it

@FionneOrlander <CoP pushing VERY hard for Judge to recognise that the policy 'protects' amorphous, unidentified and entirely unclear 'communities' >
@FionneOrlander Judge - I accept she was genuinely offended. But I will have to analyse how rational this was

@FionneOrlander Judge - you've set this out very helpfully in your skeleton. Just identify and I will highlight.
@FionneOrlander Judge - if its a hate incident non crime it HAS to be recorded. So your point on discretion is what the officer does after. I am just trying to understand what you mean by 'officer discretion'.

Def Counsel - yes and it doesn't mean he HAS to contact the individual. #FairCopJR
@FionneOrlander Judge - starting point is that these are comments on matter of great public interest. But you say the mode of expression undercuts that.

Def Counsel - no free pass for 'political speech'

Judge - I understand that

@FionneOrlander Judge - you are only quoting some of the case law. I dealt with this last year. Margin of appreciation for domestic court looking at policy IS NOT the right term - it is a term of art, dealing with a supra national court dealing with national measure.
@FionneOrlander Judge - it is not properly described as margin of appreciation, but margin of judgment.
As long as we are all on the same page, it is not margin of appreciation as Strasbourg understands it
<concedes probably little difference in practice>

@FionneOrlander Judge - your point is that I must say - here is expert policy maker and I must give deference to the fact that they are the expert policy maker in this area, not me.

Def Counsel - yes

@FionneOrlander Def counsel - its said should be narrow margin to express freedom of speech. Well yes, and no. Sort of. Its to protect minority rights. That's the foundation. There we have it.

<we do indeed>
@FionneOrlander Judge - I don't need to trouble you on common law. Right to freedom of speech but also common law right for police to retain information that may cut across that right. But has to be justified under Article 10

@FionneOrlander Judge - you say police can do things at common law that cut across human rights. Analysis straightforward. Does action engage the right. Therefore it has to be justified. facial recognition case, interference in Article 8 deemed proportionate and allowed. #FairCopJR
@FionneOrlander Judge - if Parliament wants to take away fundamental human rights it can't do it by general words, it must face up to the consequences of what it is doing

<this is second time Judge has repeated this phrase and I anticipate it will form part of his judgment...>
@FionneOrlander Judge - I may not need to decide if 'I am here to check your thinking' was said or not. hotly disputed.

Clear evidence to suggest that police didn't approve of what he did #FairCopJR
@FionneOrlander Judge - if I am satisfied over all that the police were CLEARLY creating the impression that he should stop

@FionneOrlander And now it is Counsel for Police! who gets stuck behind bench.

Just take a moment says Judge.

@FionneOrlander Counsel for P adopts arguments of CoP but wishes to cover a few topics more specific to my client.
Framework by which police exercise their discretion with reference to national decision making model and then what actually happened in this case with actions of Humberside police.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - directs Judge to case law but suspects he doesn't need to refer Judge to that.

Judge - no
@FionneOrlander Judge - say a CC is acting unlawfully if he directed officers to record economic data because the police have no role in monitoring the economic effects of strike action, for example. What CC could do is collect data on incidents of violence as that is relevant
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - it doesn't have to be 'catching the bad guys'.. other purposes, such as protecting communities.

Judge - don't need to be troubled by question that PC Gul did have common law authority to do what he did

@FionneOrlander Counsel for P apologies for having a 'bit of a cold' so if my voice goes down...

@FionneOrlander Judge - PC Gul doesn't have a decision log? Some police officers keep a written book with delineation of what they did and why. Nothing like that from PC Gul?

Counsel for P - no, recordings after the fact.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - back to national decision making model. Incorporates code of ethics into decision making. Standards of professional behaviour. - Courtesy. lawful and proportionate use of powers built into model.

@FionneOrlander Judge - all this is very interesting but very high level. What was the purpose of PC Gul going to work place. What was he going to achieve? Incident had been recorded and that is all could be done with it. It wasn't a crime. What was PC Gul doing? What was he trying to achieve?
@FionneOrlander We look at PC Gul's statement, para 10. 'I then decided it was necessary to speak to HM in order to advise him...'
@FionneOrlander Speaking to individuals and letting them know how badly they have behaved 'normally' has impact of reducing escalation.

Judge - what was the risk in PC Gul's eyes?
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - it was a large number of tweets

JUDGE - NO IT WASNT. I invite you, you are hear I am afraid to justify the police's actions, which tweets gave rise to PC Gul's decisions? His statement doesn't distinguish and that is one of the difficulties you have got
@FionneOrlander DING DING
@FionneOrlander Judge - what offence did PC Gul think would occur?

Counsel for P - could be something under the Public Order Act ....

Judge - you will be familiar with phrase ex post facto rationalisation. Factors not necessarily in their mind at the time. Persuade themselves justified.
@FionneOrlander PC Guls statement is some 9 months after this.

Counsel for P - s127 Communications Act offence. and Protection from Harassment Act.
@FionneOrlander Judge - the harassment you think PC Gul had in mind was just repeatedly tweeting about an individual?

Counsel for P - would need to assess if behaviour causing anxiety etc. I am not able to identify a particular tweet and say 'if 2 more would be harassment'
@FionneOrlander 'you are here, I am afraid, to justify the police's actions'....

I think I can stop here.

@FionneOrlander Judge - what does he mean by 'getting HM's side of the story' What story was there to get?

Counsel for P -could be helpful to know what was said in HM defence? He can't be criticised for wanting to secure another perspective in the information gathering phrase

@FionneOrlander Judge TELL HIM WHAT?

<sussuration in court>

@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - PC Gul using his discretion.

Judge - did he think he has power to overturn the recording.

Not dealt with in statement.
@FionneOrlander Judge - is it in policy statement that PC can remove recording?

Counsel for P - CoP guidance does say it can be removed. page 348.
@FionneOrlander Judge - PC Gul didn't go back to complainant and tell her he had spoken to HM and he doesn't express hate, he is exercising free speech. Do you still want me to take complaint? None of that was done was it?

Counsel for P - NO
@FionneOrlander Judge - says victim updated but that does means she is told HM has been spoken to, not the explanation he gave. Nothing fed back to her that the was just exercising his freedom of speech, he doesn't hate anyone.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - no evidence that conversation took place. She was updated with result and happy with outcome. No requirement to be going back and forth between complainant and subject of complaint. Being realistic and looking at strength of emotion...
@FionneOrlander Judge - I am not saying complainant would have withdrawn but I am testing the proposition of what PC Gul doing. You said he could remove it from data base - IF victim's perception shown to be erroneous. HM said it WAS erroneous. So why not feed back to complainant?
@FionneOrlander Judge - IF you are saying PC Gul was gathering information

counsel for P - but he had other motivations. Applying national decision making model. Alerting individuals of their bad tweeting.
@FionneOrlander Judge - to those who don't know, 2 days for a JR shows just how complex it is. A lot to think about. Its one thing for PC to be dispatched to someone who says expressing freedom of speech and that PC to warn of escalation.
@FionneOrlander Judge - question is that 'package of action' a disproportionate response to a number of not very sophisticated but not very unpleasant tweets?
HM certainly left with impression he's 'warned off'. HM makes complaint and Humberside reiterate risk of escalation to criminal offence.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P says 'PC Gul steps out of civilian mode' ?!? I really do not understand what is being said now?
@FionneOrlander PC Gal wants to make HM aware that if his behaviour escalated it may amount to hate crime

Judge - what did he mean by escalation? More tweeting? or more vituperative tweeting?
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - he means a 'different level of tweeting'.

@FionneOrlander PC Gal asserts not saying HM couldn't tweet and he denies saying 'I am here to check your thinking'. Says he is aware of HM rights and he is not attempting to restrict his ability to tweet.

<but come on police. what is the reality of the impact of this kind of intervention?>
@FionneOrlander Judge - Problem from your point of view is this - we have sought to help you understand how comments that TWAW when placed on social media platform can escalate - we have a duty to prevent you doing that.

You have to deal with 'such comments'. the same type of comment.
@FionneOrlander Judge - he is NOT saying if you say 'worse' things, he is saying if you carry on as you are you are in danger of committing a criminal offence.

Counsel for P <mournfully> I will come back to this at 2pm
@FionneOrlander ITS LUNCH TIME.
@FionneOrlander And we are back!

Counsel for P wants to step back from just one letter and look at wider context. Repeats PC Gul not seeking to restrain speech. 'Escalation' refers to content and nature.
@FionneOrlander to prevent escalation into a crime with which hate incidents can lead to... a change of nature?

HM tweeted 'trans women are not women' AFTER PC Gul visited so he didn't perceive tweet as criminal?

<not following>
@FionneOrlander HM sets out his perception of PC Gul's actions which I don't adopt.... what was being said, if you keep tweeting you will be committing an offence.
@FionneOrlander The word 'escalation' should be read in natural meaning

Judge I am sorry I have lost the thread

@FionneOrlander <really not following this>
Judge - isn't fair meaning is that the message the police wished to convey is 'stop doing this or you are committing a crime'

Counsel for P - no, he specifically advised you can continue doing what you are doing ,?!?

Judge Yup
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - 'escalation' encompasses all those who may be reading on line. Has to be wider analysis of the impact on the 'community'

<I suggest we don't hold our collective breath for any definition of 'community'>
@FionneOrlander Judge - he wasn't harassing anyone. He wasn't even in the foothills of harassment.

Counsel for P - er, I am not referring to criminal harassment

Judge - in ordinary English words, he wasn't harassing anyone he was conversing with those who elected to follow him on Twitter.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - it caused a strong reaction -

Judge - to ONE person. We have looked at the evidence. Reference to other people being upset.

People don't have the right to go through life not being upset.

@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - I accept that but police have duty to engage with community and duties under EA

Judge - I am afraid you will have to give me a specific reference to where it says police role is to act in community mediation ...give me the reference please
@FionneOrlander Judge - 'have due regard to the need to'... yup

Counsel for P - due regard to need to foster good relations...

Judge just a second - reads - doesn't say anything there about acting as community mediation service

<nearby snicker>
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - can I assist further

Judge - No. no.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - can be no dispute that recording was in line with the guidance bearing in mind the complaint. looking at definition of non crime incident which is perceived by victim or another as motivated by hate.
@FionneOrlander Judge - phobia is a particularly strong word. What do you say it means?

Counsel for P - its almost irrelevant what it means

@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - complainant was personally offended. <that seems to be it in terms of identification> no evidence of malice to prevent it being recorded.
@FionneOrlander Judge - I am sorry I am not following ANY of what you are saying.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - some one could be a victim if exposed to the same material.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - we have established that the definition of non crime is met

Judge - what about internet stories? If you just read it on the internet you aren't really involved in it?

Counsel for P - that is distinct from means of communication
@FionneOrlander Judge - we think complainant used True Vision which is operated by the Met - police explain, its hosted by a secure server. The met just look after the machinery.
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - on a correct interpretation of the guidance, there was a need to report and no reason not to report.
@FionneOrlander Judge doesn't want to be addressed on common law so we go to page 13 of skeleton for Humberside. Quite telling in this case that HM had to resort to argument of 'chilling effect' as he doesn't seem to be able to establish classic interference.

Judge - that is for ME to decide.
@FionneOrlander Judge - if I find impact of PC Gul's behaviour was to stop behaviour, that is classic example of state interference. Intention doesn't matter.

Counsel for P - we know that wasn't outcome as he continued tweeting

Judge - I take point, not conviction or fine etc.
@FionneOrlander Judge - what point are you making?

Counsel for P - chilling effect can only follow a sanction
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - no definition in law

Judge - its US Supreme Court jurisprudence from 1950s. Accept no sanction in classic sense, accept all of that. but HM Counsel says 'take a step back. Look what happened. Threat of proceedings. All together has chilling effect'.
@FionneOrlander Judge - the fact that there has been a chilling effect, even without sanction, demonstrates an interference with Article 10.

Counsel for P - has to be something sufficiently serious. Minimum line above which chilling effect can be found.
@FionneOrlander Judge - just give me the key take

Counsel for P - example of sanctions that lead to chilling effect.

Judge - what is minimum line?

Counsel for P - these two cases!
@FionneOrlander <not clear counsel realises the significance of phrase 'what is your key take'>
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P argues that detention for a day was NOT deemed sufficient to have a 'chilling effect' <but an interference with human rights was found?>
@FionneOrlander Judge - the issue here is does recording of hate incident, plus visit, plus telephone call in which it is said - if you escalate it will be a crime, coupled with repetition of threat in letter, is that sufficient to arise to a chilling effect. That is the issues
@FionneOrlander counsel for P - Humberside says a very firm NO. No case law

Judge - cases are always fact specific. Fact there hasn't been another case is neither here nor there.

Counsel for P < >
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - even taking the whole package, when looking at the effect of it, HM says he was concerned and anxious but we don't accept that evidence. Proof is in the pudding and that is the continued tweets and publicising this incident.
@FionneOrlander Judge - HM statement "I resolved to do this to demonstrate to the police that contentious speech is not illegal speech"
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - PC Gul did not bring him to brink of criminal sanction but to remind him of the limits of speech and that applies to everyone. You can keep doing what you are doing but be aware.

<o my>
@FionneOrlander Counsel for P - PC Gul didn't make any suggestion that HM take tweets down

Judge that would clearly be an interference.
@FionneOrlander Judge - you don't need to deal with this point as it isn't a problem

Counsel for P <ploughs on to deal with point>
@FionneOrlander <this is actually a fascinating exercise in what is and what is not, effective advocacy>
@FionneOrlander Unless I can assist further on those points?

Judge <firmly> No thank you
@FionneOrlander Now HM Counsel Ian Wise QC in reply. Looks at protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

Judge - Gender reassignment - someone who has surgery

Counsel - all the references to protected characteristics are simply wrong. They are confusing them with the protected strands
@FionneOrlander Counsel - this is a 2010 Act with all Parliamentary agreement. They have decided which characteristics should be protected

Judge - your point is that transgender as identified in CoP guideline is NOT a protected characteristic
@FionneOrlander Counsel - yes, and thus their assertions that they are acting in accordance with the Equality Act are simply wrong.

<finally this point is made. We can see the legacy of the Stonewall 'training' here and frequent misapplication of the EA>
@FionneOrlander Judge - address me on two things

Whether actions of police taken as a whole are Article 10 interference
If it was interference was it disproportionate and why
@FionneOrlander Counsel - your Lordship has already articulated all the factors on which we would rely. Also impact on family which neither CoP or police have addressed. We say powerful and material. Reality is 'knock on the door' from police is intimidatory.

@FionneOrlander YOUR LORDSHIP

<over and out>
@FionneOrlander There is still some talking.
But this is over.
@FionneOrlander OK, this is good point - Ian Wise say other side have confused legitimate aim with proportionality - all they can see is the outcome they want, so it doesn't matter who they trample on.
@FionneOrlander Nor is it reality to say that police forces can 'chose' to follow guidance. Letters says 'ALL forces' follow it.
@FionneOrlander And look at unredacted letter re complainant.
"Victim has herself been making derogatory comments"


'Victim' is not vulnerable and they tried to hide this.
@FionneOrlander Judge - I have become familiar with term TERF. It is a derogatory term used by those who seek to deplatform those who hold different views.

If complainants comments directed particularly at women who hold TERF views that wouldn't be a protected characteristic.
@FionneOrlander Judge - I am very grateful to all counsel for the assistance I have been given. I will take time to consider my decision. I will circulate a draft judgment then hand it down. Can't promise when. I am hoping before Christmas.

I am acutely aware of the interest

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with WeAreFairCop

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!