Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning on Day 4 of the case of Raquel Rosarino Sanchez against Bristol University. The court is due to begin at 10am.

A reminder that Alice De Coverley (AC) is barrister for Raquel (RRS) and Laura Johnson (LJ) is barrister for Bristol. The Judge is Alexander Ralton (AR).

This is my first time live tweeting this case and I'd ask you bear with me as I find my feet. Apologies in advance for any typos or mistakes, I'm sure you can appreciate the speed at which we're working.

AR asks for witness back in box. AC asks about press requests. AC is asking if the witness statement has gone out to them, and if it hasn't yet we want to make it watertight in protecting AA.

AC says the anonymity isn't comprehensive. AC is not not stopping information getting out, just concerned about AA anonymity. AR and AC are in agreement. AC suggests drawing an order that disenables press identifying AA. AR will have a think about it.

AR: so far as keeping anonymous, it's very difficult people triangulation from different pieces of Information
AC: perhaps I will put forward a confidentiality report
AR: We can't protect AA from any info they put into public domain

LJ raises the code of practice and states judge has a copy of witnesses statement. LJ states she has given the wrong regulations (too fast) and is currently getting the regulations necessary. She is very sorry about that.

This was all very confusing...but now have witness X from yesterday in the box.

AC: as I understand the motion to ban RRS views was passed by student union
Witness: No not a first
AC: we have an original complaint in the bundle page 118

AC: This is an email chain between RRS and unknown, the uni view was unstead of dealing with complaint, they'd use the opportunity to reaffirm the Uni's stance

AC: nowhere in the email says rather than deal with the matter we are going to deal with it like this. Do you accept this was the experience of the claiment.
Witness: Yes

AC reads out RRS letter saying she wasn't happy with the way the uni is dealing with and she goes on to say in the email that something needs to be done before the situ gets any worse.

AC says that the legal services states their advice was not to do anything. That seems to match with the response as BU will use this a ls a learning opportunity for their campus

AC: despite RRS asking it to be dealt with, a public statement was put out and that was a statement produced by Professor X (in bundle page 12) in extremely small writing. You're familiar with the statement
Witness: yes
AC: were you involved
Witness: no

AC: (reads end of BU statement) your first contact with the client, you write to RRS and thanks for various links she sent. You say at the end of the email 'the aim of any process I decide will be that any harassment directed at you will cease' (too fast).

AC: You said in the email 'This is the unis responsibility to stop this,'
Witness: Yes
AC: you say it will impact RRS studies in the letter
Couldn't hear witness response.

AC: following email exchange you were told of another event April 18, the 'jam jar' events. What happened in that was this was an event soughyto be run by similar views of Women's place UK and its right that masked protesters attended that and stopping it starting
Witness: yes

AC: your aware that that AA shouted expletives directly at these women
Witness: yes
AC: So this is another example of women being shut down by students?
(Can't hear witness)
AC: have you seen the footage?
Witness: yes

AC: talks of articles in Guardian with some masked protesters who apologised for their behaviour
Do you accept RRS would feel unsafe in these events?
Witness: I can't speak for her
AC: but you must have known that
Witness: yes

AC: despite the behaviour of many students the sole aim was at AA and another student.
Witness: states there was 'yobbish behaviour'
AC: and no other students or students investigated
Witness: investigate is (missed) term

AC: RRS explained she didn't know her complaint would be put on hold and BU later wrote a letter which RRS comments on, can you find it in the bundle. They're hard to see
Witness: I see now

AC: the wording of the later 'I'm aware you found the relationship of these complaints confusing (too fast). From claimant's perspective they found the complaints procedure and complaints procedure confusing which BU accepts in this letter

AC: it's right that AA is a trans activist?
Witness: yes
AC: and they approached it by defending trans rights
Witness: yes

AC: that first disciplinary hearing was6 months since the letter, about 5 months after RRS raised it
Witness: yes
AC: you accept that 6 months is a longtime before you deal with harassment
Witness: that's the plaintive position

AC: but that's a long time.
Witness too quiet
AC: did you tell RRS that it was likely to be a barrister that would cross examine her
Witness: not involved in the correspondence
AC: do you think they should have done?

Witness: I told RRS the day before
AC: but did you know before who was going to be the barrister. There's a difference between student reps and qualified barristers?
Witness: yes
AC: you spoke to Dr Williams
Witness: yes

AC: I find it shocking you didn't mention a barrister. Would you accept a legal barrister would be cross examination rather than light questioning
Witness: yes
AC: would you expect a student to be flummoxed by this
Witness: it's possible

AC: what I mean is the difference between a friend and a barrister. You accepted that
Witness: yes
AC: the point is RRS found it intimidating and she expressed that to you
Witness: yes
AC: RRS expressed her reluctance
Witness: yes

AC: RRS asked her evidence to be given in closed session
Witness: no AA had been accused and had a right to a hearing
AC: you accept special measures can be created for circumstances like these. Nothing was provided for RRS
(Can't hear witness)

AC: RRS was asked her views
Witness: yes
AC: just to reiterate that the way she was cross examined made her feel emotionally harmed and expressed her distress to you

AC: witness statements were provided that morning and I haven't seen any correspondence with AA legal team to show legal documents.
Witness: AA related those issues on the day.

Sound has gone on live link.

The clerk has informed us a technical issue has occurred and court has srisen for 5 minutes.

During this recess I'd like to correct that the early concerns about AA's anonoymity were expressed by LJ and not AC. Apologies.

We are still waiting for the court to restart.

The clerk has informed us it may be another 10 minutes

The court has restarted. Talks of 'is it safe' 'smells like it was on fire'. Can't ascertain what has happened.

The court is again experiencing technical difficulties.

Likely to be another 15 minutes as informed by the Clerk

During this short recess I'd like to inform you that the witness who has been giving evidence today is Keith Feeney, a senior university lawyer. He is continuing his evidence from yesterday.

The court has restarted and power has been restored.
AC: Mr Feeney, I'd like to come back to the reference, a log that was put together, not clear by who but someone of behalf of defendant.

AC:I'm looking entry 10, you see there's an email to you, again, summarises RRS will attend the hearing but doesn't feel safe. You remember the email
Witness: yes

AC: do you accept the protest could appear intimidating and she communicated that to you
Witness: there were no protesters
AC: there were no protesters?
(Can't hear Witness)
AC: are you aware of Sisters Uncut, you were provides with screenshots from those orgs?
Witness: yes

AC: it was included that AA supported this
Witness: I don't know
AC: and the pallet contains violence doesn't it.
Witness unclear
AC; RRS made you aware of AA crowdfunder to get legal support and includes false claims about women's Place UK and they hate trans people?

Witness: not sure
AC: but its as linked to woman's place
Witness: yes
AC: do you remember having a meeting with an inclusion officer and Sari said to thinks about proceedings toward AA
Witness: (Unclear)
AC: was raised on the basis of perceived discrimination ad they ID ad trans

AC: look in bundle after first disciplinary meeting and this pledge arose didn't it because of what was going on
Witness: I have no knowledge of the pledge whatsoever
AC: OK so now we have disciplinary committee working through AAs allegations

AC: this is then just to recap, there were 2 allegations and going to go ahead with 4...I can't see any attempts in the bundle to set dates for a disciplinary hearing
Witness: I don't know
AC: it wasn't explained fully to RRS was it
Witness: I think I tried to

AC: do you think RRs may have found it odd as she was trying to explain her inability of free speech
Witness: from emails I received I could see she was confused. I tried to explain the process several times

AC: this is a letter to the disciplinary committee and was sent to RRS
Witness: yes
AC: as far as RRS knew there would be a disciplinary hearing and then it was stated it was necessary to cancel it with no reasons given
Witness: no
AC: recognition in January there'd been a delay

AC: and the client was impacted by this and she conveyed her distress and she wrote long emails conveying this to you?
Witness: yes
AC: one of the reasons then given was venue security. You wrote and said to RRS ( they're looking at bundles)

AC: this wasn't you, this would have been X, we had to cancel due to graduation ceremonies happening on the same day and this would have posed a risk. Do you remember this?
Witness: yes
AC: so the day was picked wasn't appropriate was it? It meant it couldn't happen
Witness: yes

AC: once again we have disciplinary hearing that has to be moved in respect to protests by students?
Witness: yes that's correct
AC: the protesters knew about the hearings didn't they?
Witness: not sure
AC: only person who told them could have been AA?

Witness: it's a possibility
AC: and we spoke yesterday about how confidentiality is featured and you accepted in the question that if the parties involved failed to keep confidential there would be a sanction?
Witness: yes

AC: so that's twice its happened
Witness: it didn't impact
AC: yes it did have an impact on RRS, you accepted that because we talked about that in some detail
Witness: yes

AC: we also know from Dr Williamson email from 2019, sent you a link to an organisation (missed) and Emma said 'I flag this as it is extremely worrying they are targeting RRS for her trans and sex work views (too fast) she will be targeted further'

AC: a document also names RRS as a participant and calls this event to be challenged. It describes orgs she works for as 'heinous' like Fair Play For Women and Woman's Place Uk

AC: this is RRs area of research and core of her work.
AR: How would he know?
AC: it's right because the events were to do with sex based rights and related to her studies and her interests

AC: it calls her misogynistic, transphobic and anti sex work.
This is an important aspect here as the dependent says there's been no harm
AR: doesn't look like its part of the same story, there's no punching TERFS
AC: it's the same culture

AC: do you remember what other orgs would post the leaks?
Can't hear witness
AC: we agree AA must have leaked details of this hearing in 2019 and we know AA was not sclanctioned for doing so, nor any other student
Witness: yes

AC: wr also know the security issues were a reason for the delay weren't they
Witness: yes
AC: is also right no students including AA were not sanctioned for distributing pamphlets that normalising violence against women
Witness: yes

AC: still no action taken against the students even though you knew the pamphlet was being distributed?
AC: all during this time RRS is telling you it's putting her under great strain
Witness: yes
AC: and noone mentioned she should get legal help?
Witness is unclear.

AC: marianne hester, another member of uni, writes saying RRS should be advised of legal help.
and Dr Nicholson supplies a statement about the delay to the committee. She sets out the impact on RRS and confirmed by RRS supervisor.

AC: she raises concerns about cross examination and the fact its a lengthy delay and believes the uni needs to deal with this...anything other than this to see this through will add credence to accusations online, she also says she wouldn't want to experience what RRS is

AC: another letter from Dr Williamson (Apologies for earlier name mistake) and says this is now 8 months later and 'came as a suprise to hear 17 months after the complaint it was being terminated with no reason'
Witness: the paragraph is not accurate from Dr Williamson

AC: but there were no reasons given
Witness: I didn't give reasons
AC: but we know no reasons were given
Witness: I didn't, no
AC: it's right at the time no reasons were given, nothing helped her understand 18 months later the process had halted

AC: RRS felt the processes had become confused, we talked of that earlier didn't we
Witness: yes
AC: so to clarify nothing was stated to RRS as to why this had happened

AC: by terminating the proceedings the original complaint would be terminated
Witness: again not correct
(Talks about regulations and can't make it out)

AC: at this point 18 months later where the complaint has gone nowhere you can see why the claimant thinks it's over and unresolved?

Witness: I don't think that's entirely accurate
AC: do you think this left the complaint unresolved
Witness: not sure

(I cannot make out what the witness is saying. The mic keeps dropping in and out when he talks.)

AC: Dr Williamson letter says she can honestly say that the university support for students needs to go beyond signposting

AC: after June2019 you didn't see the claimant again
Witness: no
AC: and its fair to say that (using picture in bundle) AA felt vindicated
Witness: can't speak for them
AC: but it's clear
AR: I can see perfectly well the use of the middle finger is obvious

Witness: I haven't seen any evidence
AC: but the purpose of the disciplinary hearing sanctions and the person carrying out the misconduct
Witness: in part (can't make out)

AC: we then have this email from Marianne Hester who says she's extremely worried about the uni not protecting RRS from abuse. Not adequate just to enquire her wellbeing. Also there was a man in balaclava that had to be removed from an event for RRS safety

Witness: yes
AC: and the event RRS was trying to organise was a women's event. And masked people are bing removed from these events. This is evidence of harm to her
Witness: yes
AC: and on her wellbeing
Witness: don't know for sure

AC: we know the uni accepts the letter from Sally heslop from Sept 2019 to RRS but hasn't provided a statement. She complained about the delay and the impact on her and her studies.
This is a doc again and ends with her expressing personal regret of RRS distressing time at BU

AC: BU has accepted there's been excessive delay and was never actually completed
Witness: it reached rhe point (unclear)
AC: the letter goes on to say the delay was excessive and that dates caused delay and AA continually leaking
Witness: presumably

AC: BU said 'I find it's caused you (RRS) considerable distress and the impact has had an impact on your PHD studies. The anxiety you've experienced over a long period has affected your studies'

AC: (too fast) but covers inadequacies of BU's processes. BU recognised a cause or link between the actions of the university and RRS. I'm asking this because it's would be in unis knowledge when drafting the letter
Witness: not sure that's what the letter says
AC reads it again

AC: the uni is offering the maximum award for compensation...and are limited in what they can offer
Witness: yes
AC: I want to clock that the new regulations are here and have been given to witness and your honour.

AR: We will adjourn until 2pm please.