Thread by @tribunaltweets

OD: really, I do disagree, even in respect to the evidence BC refers to. There's nothing wrong with these individuals saying they were fundraising as there were many others.

BC points EJ to the document
BC: were now on draft 4 as OD as on the hoof redrafted it
EJ: is there any life left in the original application? Is there any use to the original application which seeks to not publish names and emails

OD: I take BC's point about rewording and I apologise there have been various iterations and BC shouldn't suggest that's improper. The new doc doesn't stop people reporting the fundraising activities but will protect their privacy

EJ: if tribunal were to restrict names and emails, would we have to adopt ciphers and have all info redacted. Thinking of the particular risk Jenny Smith TT identified of anyone inadvertently sharing anonymous material

OD: the redaction exercise would be limited, it's a limited suite of docs in the Bundle and would require any witness statements being redacted that's easy to do. And to use complainant 1, 2, 3 and 4 as to how we refer to the individuals.

EJ: what I'm envisaging is that some points in the doc, complainant 1 appears as complainant 1 and in other docs referred to as their names. Everyone including tribunal members will have to be careful not to forgot. BC has indicated the employment status issue

OD: in which case we'd have to identify which documents they're involved in and where they had specific interactions to the Bundle that was made public.
BC: this is introducing a whole new level. We made it clear ...(missed) and this is delaying the proceedings.

BC: AP tells me there are 1000s of mentions by the individuals in their bundles. If we're to start with a remote possibility of hearing submissions we have to start tomorrow morn and there has to be a copy of the bundle that ppl viewing can see. I take OD point about refinement

OD: a practical solution is we refer to them as their names and reporters have to be careful not and would require Jenny Smith and her colleague to give pause before she writes her tweet and that way there'd be no restriction

OD: the Bundle could have supervised access rather than put up publucally on the website until the redactions have been made. I disagree there are 1000s of refs nor Di they feature in narrative of docs, but emails will need to be redacted

EJ: it's been common practice for there to be some means to see the Bundle. It's been common currency the bundles are made available remotely and secondly if we did have supervised access, it wouldn't involve standing over members of the public so they can't write it down

OD: I'm thinking they can't take screenshots.
EJ: in olden days we couldn't make sure of that either
OD: (missed)...that's my experience of different regions

OD: we would ask for the necessary time to redact this information...which isn't a great number...I'm told it's not

EJ: we'll consider the whole matter and aim to give a decision at 4pm. For necessity we will give the outline reasons for our decision but won't be a fully drafted set of reasons... which I'm sure you'll understand. Again, please leave and rejoin at 4pm.

There was a lot of discussion of examples, about the restrictions potential effects, to the extent that we feel it best not to report some of the the session in detail. We're ready for restart at 4pm.

We are back.

EJ: we've come to a conclusion of which we are unanimous. We will make a restrictive reporting order for names and emails for the duration of the hearing for the 4 complainants This started as an application for exactly that.

OD said jobtitles needed restricting then after the subs a further refinement was introduced that the tribunal should define which ways the people should be referred to. Then a further refinement.

EJ: BC position described as neutral and also objection eceived on behalf of press association and live tweeters. In regard to balancing exercise of open justice, any order we make must be practical and clear not least because a breach is criminal.

EJ: We found it wouldn't be practical or proportionate...members of the public would not be able to understand if restricted the way suggested. Its essential for open justice theat it can be reported so people can understand. Looking at original we found article 8 is engaged

EJ: we found the public would not need the names or emails to follow the case. Tribunal considered it would give some protection to them and balancing the competing factors. A proportionate measure to take. The order will have force during the hearing.

EJ: It's been a somewhat difficult exercise because it's come at a late stage right at the beginning of the hearing. The leaves a remaining question which is how the Bundle will be dealt with.

EJ: It seems to us placing the docs on a website to the public would amount to reporting or publishing the info and if that will be done the docs will need to be redacted.

BC is offering suggestions for the Bundle to be accessible.
ID: we can work that before tomorrow morning
BC: one other practical matter, people will drop in and out of this and we'll need to work out how to give this info. We can put this in the chatroom

EJ: I'm wondering myself how to do it
BC: if we can make sure people arrive in batches we can make sure that can be done
OD: everyday we can remind people and the clerk can do this in the waiting room to make sure it's enforced

EJ: we admit people at ten and anyone late to that will wait to mid morning break and at each point the existence of the order made clear
OD: that'd be workable
BC: that involves some restriction of the hearing because usually pol can come and go as they please.

EJ: if there are dozens of people coming and going and each time they have to be warned. Perhaps we can think on this overnight
BC: a good point about connection breaks
EJ: thinking allowed it may be possible to keep a register of who is attending

AP: some people will be following this via the live tweets and it's not impossible upon googling we're told to find out who the individuals are. How will people if they don't log on to this, how will they know not to do this

BC: there are 2 separate questions: how do make sure people in the hearing hear the order and the public hear the order. We can park that and think about it. What we need is the best possible way of the order being on the door like in a physical building.

BC: I can't think of a better solution than the one OD suggested other than a clerk monitoring the room at regular intervals and giving the briefing.... we may need to start earlier
EJ: it's not as easy as that. We can turn off cameras & converse over the phone for 5 minutes

5 minutes later...
EJ: right we can start at 9.30 if that's all right and we can have a think overnight about this. We adjourn until 9.30am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp unroll please

Thank you for following today and tune into tomorrow at 9.30 for Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal.