Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon from the 9th May hearing of Allison Bailey's case against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers. This morning's thread is here:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1523580984985550848

The court is back in session.

Abbreviations, and previous days' tweeting, are here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

AH: Miss Bailey I could not find any earlier emails - perhaps BC will come back to this.

AH: Email from you AB in Feb 2019.
AH: Clerk replies: says will be doing practice reviews later in the week. Plural
AB: Yes tho I don't think any happened

AH: You say page 1291 can you meet when you are back - in March?
AB: correct

AH: He replies in March saying is arranging the practice reviews, suggest Thursday 28th
AB: And I replied saying yes sure
AH: But review didn't happen?
AB: I don't think so, can't remember why

AH: Did you chase?
AB: I don't remember, I'm sorry, we often communicated by phone so no record.

AH: No suggestion here Mr Tennant is abandoning you.
AB: No

AH: And here we see him putting you forward as a suggestion for a case, junior to Mr Monteith
AB: Yes

AH: And then a bit later, April, page 1359, email from Mark Schwarz at Bindmans.
AB: Yes I know him and the firm well

AH: And CT replies with a list of people suggested, including you
AB: Yes
AH: Extinction Rebellion case? High profile?
AB: Yes

AH: Now CT and [missed name]
AB: Yes she is one of my top 3 solicitors for referrals
AH: p1382 - CT says X is not available, and then lists 3 names with you at the top, asks if any OK, she replies "can I have Allison" and CT says "of course"

AH: p6207 this is April - CT then emails you to say case in your diary and gives details, says new instruction (tho mentions X). He is acting as your clerk?
AB: yes he is

AH: You then reply saying hang fire a bit and asking re the fees. This is you turning down the case in spite of correct and good clerking
AB: The case would have brought me no fee at all.

AH: p1395 - solicitor then emails CT to say you have helpfully said why you can't do it
AB: She was in difficult position - change of barrister - difficult client - ethical issues - I gave her a bit of advice about what she should do

AH: Point I am making is that CT is still acting as your clerk.
AB: I like Charlie, we get on well, but he had not asked sufficient Qs or joined dots, and it was a mistake to take the case, a sentencing hearing

AH: Perhaps you would answer my Qs -
AB: I have answered all your Qs
AH: Don't think so
AB: disagree

AH: Your statement says CT had been replaced as your clerk, but here he is clerking for you.
AB: No, that is not clerking - putting on lists, and clerking for a case that we should not have taken

AH: End of April - CT recommends you and 1 other, the other was chosen?
AB: Yes, she is more senior than I am

AH: You accept he is a clerk putting you forward?
AB: I accept that

AH: Here is a case - let's look at correspondence re this. CT emails you 3rd May. p1403. Please note date

AH: CT says Hi, thank you for letting me know unavailable, thought you might like to get back in touch with that solicitor as you haven't for a while. Says you are valued by the clerks' room and says whole year has been slow for everybody

AH: You reply to CT the same day - thanks, much appreciated, have left voicemail, happy bank hols. He replies same day saying has got voicemail and will be actively touting for new solicitors etc

AH: very cordial exchange.

AB: Of course, have always got on well with my clerks. I knew something was going wrong with my practice but did not find out what until disclosure with this case. But yes, very cordial

AH: But, you don't say to CT "why aren't you clerking me, why have your replaced yourself", none of that.
AB: You have not quoted the email where I *did* say to CT I was worried about being in the basement

AH: You do *not* say to CT, anywhere, about him being replaced by Luke Harding.
AB: Not in those words, but, had been in contact with clerks re my lack of work for nearly a month

AB: I had postponed surgery so as not to need 3 months recuperation. I came out of the Jan case raring to go, actively chasing work -
AH: CT put you forward twice in February
AB: V short work that would have diary-blocked me for longer cases

AH: Diary for Feb 2019?
AB: not sure what you mean?
AH: We will look later at diary

AH: 15th May CT is putting forward names, including you, acting as your clerk
AB: Yes
AH: p 1477 5 June CT putting your forward in a list
AB: yes
AH: as your clerk?
AB: yes

AH: p1482 6th June again CT putting forward names, includes yours
AB: COrrect

AH: Now the big trial you did - you fell ill during it - had to take some time off, and trial aborted?
AB: Yes. It was a re-trial with a chequered history -
AH: Yes "case of M" - extraordinary case. 4 retrials?

AB: Yes - the case was an enormous amount of work.
AH: So back to timeline, you are v busy on that case then taken ill, then a couple of hearings July, most of August off bar 3 days?
AB: Yes - picking up existing cases for consistency of barrister

AH: Then we come to September. p1804. CT writes to you 17/9 and asks after you, LH says you weren't well yesterday, asking you to do a 3 day case in Isleworth
AH: You reply later that day, say you still don't feel good, but thank you for asking.

AH: This is him being your clerk?
AB: Yes

AB: NB this was just a cold - not related to July illness

AB: I think I would not have wanted to do a 3 day hearing because I had heard of a murder trial coming up in court which I wanted to do re QC application, was very keen to remain free in case of doing that

AH: But. This was CT, being your clerk, asking after you.
AB: Yes indeed it was. But, the quality of the work being offered was very different. CT and I have had a very good relationship, stayed in touch through last year.

AH: But he was your clerk.
AB: I disagree,he was not doing my day to day clerking

AH: p1813, 25/9, email from CT. Asks after your health. Says everything seems to be moving to next year. THis is true? You had many cases listed for 2019 but moved to 2020?
AB: Yes [lists 3 cases this happened to] and then delayed further bcs Covid

AH: And this case - no evidence offered?
AB: Not quite that simple - case began and arguments made, but then 3 days in prosecution offered no evidence

AH: CT then asks if you want your diary filled up or do you want fairly relaxed. This is CT concerned, as your clerk, to know what you want to do with diary?
AB: correct

AH: You reply saying yes was thinking the same thing. You mean worry re diary.
AB: No, my diary was fine, I was agreeing with him re noting the cases going back to 2020

AH: But you didn't have the big murder trial in your diary at this point.
AB: No but I knew case was coming up, and had another big case in diary too

AB: The murder case was originally in for October but got moved to November.

AH: CT asks you if you would like diary filled up. You say you are thinking the same thing. I suggest you mean the same thing. You say you are doing lots of exciting extra-curricular stuff but need to pay rent, you ask him to find out what is around for rest of the year

AH: p83 of your statement. You say GCC thought "extra curricular" means LGB Alliance but you say not. What was it?

AB: It's in statement. It was re Twitter; Magdalen Berns had recently died and I was spending time learning what women were saying around all this

AH: Can we agree you were not clear about whether / how much to fill your diary, you say you will be talking to a couple of people, that is what you were telling clerk.

AB: I knew that I wanted to spend some time on Twitter and so on. But, CT knows - if a good piece of work comes in he would notify me regardless - had always worked that way before.

AH: p260 of statement. You say CT emailed and that at that point your diary looked fairly full. Not true.
AB: diary not full for September but I was confident of having good work for the rest of year. Was happy with how it looked for end of 2019

AH: And you say looking good for 2020?
AB: Yes, for work that I myself had personally brought in.
AH: No suggestion CT not doing properly for you.
AB: Indeed, was drawing line under first part of 2019. Important to get on well with clerks. I liked CT, good relationship.

AH: He had not been replaced.
AB: He was not the person calling me up - most comms is by phone - clerking is a *relationship* - did not have that with CT in 2019, and I missed that.

AH: Now we see that the murder case *does* come in, and CT emails you. Says he confirms you are on the murder case at the Old Bailey, starts 4/11, names senior counsel and clients etc

AH: You reply, just 2 words, "Thank you!" exclamation mark. That is absolutely typical clerking relationship?
AB: Yes it is. This is a couple of weeks after the email exchange we looked at, when we talked about diary. Yes, this is a good clerking exchange.

AH: Your statement says p260, you say re 25/9 emails your diary was full, you had brought a murder into chambers. The "murder" is the same on in emails 7/10?
AB: No this was a different murder. [gives details] I knew it was coming, before it went to clerks or to diary.

AH: Then this case in addition - didn't start on 4/11 after all?
AB: Yes QC was not available so we had to change

AH: statement para307 -- we see you say you were in court just about every day for rest of 2019
AB: Yes I see that
AH: So we see that you have no complaints re diary autumn 2019
AB: Correct

AH: So the "fell off a cliff" is earlier?
AB: January to early autumn
AH: You say Feb in statement - till when, this conspiracy?
AB: All the year -
AH: But you were busy autumn
AB: The "DC" case was the only primary-clerked case, and it was a return

AB: All other work was work I had myself brought in. My point is, still no active progress development from my clerks.

AH: You accept I think that LH and CE had arrived in clerking team before your December email
AB: Yes
AH: You accept LH not clerking TRWG after Aug 2018
AB Yes

AH: You accept CT still your clerk thru 2019
AB: I do no
AH: You don't
AB: I don't. Day to day relationship changed. And with solicitors. Was being done by LH and CE, who didn't really know me. Offering me work suited to much more junior barrister.

AB: Criminal barrister - takes ages to get to good clerked position and I thought I had done so.

AH: You made no complaint in exchange 25/9.
AB: Scroll down, you can see me writing to LH about cases.
AH: One occasion you berated him -
AB: I didn't berate.

AH: You say to LH "why do you think this work is appropriate".
AB: p1173 - I ask LH what he's been told in terms of which cases I should be clerked for.
AH: He asked if you cd do 3 days in Guildford, you said no.
AB: yes

AH: LH says no probs, it was a return, gives you info, says he thought he'd go the extra mile, knows it is below your grade and a long shot but thought he'd check. This is not evidence that you were being pushed out.

AB: It is not ridiculous to say so. I had had no work from chambers for ages, and then offered this. Expectation for certain quality of brief after 20 years at bar. Would not have been OK to raise hell with clerks - had to ask gently.

AH: After 20 years you should have generated your own reputation.
AB: I had!
AH: Clerks were not starving you - bringing in your own work.

AB: If I wanted to progress towards QC, I needed clerks to assist, to place cases suitable for application.

AH: The Extinction Rebellion case and the 37 day murder fall into that that category.
AB: yes

AH: para 546 of your statement. You say up to then no complaint to clerks, not worth making a fuss. You say here, not until Subject Access Request, you realised that your protected act, email Dec 2018, was cause. Submitted by you?
AB: yes

AH: p902 [reads intro] this is the SAR?
AB: Yes
AH: You have already commenced early conciliation?
AB: I believe that happens in cases of this type yes

AH: But you say you only realised at disclosure that the clerking was due to Dec 2018 email
AB: Yes, that was when I realised the level of hostility - disclosure has been very protracted - when I started to see the emails I realised "that is what caused eveyrthing in 2019"

AH: my point is that if you had started early conciliation that must be something to do with this claim?
AB: I was told it had commenced, that was all
AH: About your claim, this claim
AB: Yes

AH: In the SAR you ask for any emails Dec2018 to date about clerking arrangements. Part and parcel of case?
AB: Asking for info about my clerking is like asking for full personnel record that's all.

AB: It's only when I *received* the disclosure that I realised level of outright hostility from very senior members of Chambers - JK, TW

AH: If you thought CT had been replaced by LH you would have had words with the clerks, you didn't.
AB: I went as far as I could without alienating clerks, on whom I rely for work.
AH: You didn't say to CT he had been replaced.
AB: No

[FIVE MINUTE BREAK]

[Resumes]
AH: The last leg for today. Going to the timeline. 2018. starting with bundle 1018. This is email from you to CT. We were envisaging having time off for surgery and recovery.
AB: correct
AH: I understand from today's evidence the operation didn't go ahead
AB: correct

I was told that I would need 3 months to recover.
AH: in october through to end of year you were away
AB: yes
AH: we can exclude that period of time. R&S trial due to take four weeks
AB: I suppose so
AH: look at diary. 22nd Jan 2019 is the last day. Go to wit state p15 para 57

You say there you had a spell of illness but able to do some work and that's why you need longer rather than series of smaller cases. You want a gap of a few days between cases.
AB: that right
AH: you had a private case which the solicitor bartered from £350 to £350

AB: that's right.
AH: going to M trial - you did that trial?
AB: I did
AH: next entry case I will call KO. It was adjourned and moved to October
AB: It was a trial which was very complex. Modern day slavery
AH: p5402 this was the case we saw on 13th Feb. No-one could have known

that it would be adjourned. Not clerks fault it was adjourned
AB: Oh no.
AH: This trial listed for 7 Feb goes off and comes back in Oct. Before that 'S' case had gone short unexpectedly.
AB: no surprising
AH: the you go away. Correspondence says 19th Feb-18thFeb (date corrected

later).
AB: was concerned that work was drying up
AH: but you had KO trial coming up
AB: for 3 weeks I was available for work
AH: so you say clerks deliberately didn't give you work
AB: not deliberately. When you don't hear about any work it's concerning

AH: you would have been preparing for trial which subsequently was moved.
AB: it was down to take 1 day but modern slavery was brought up and so the case went over. The prep for that case had been done for a year but Modern slavery was brought up
AH: you then said that you

would be away
AB: my clerks have been known to call me if anything came in. I booked the time because I delayed elective surgery to concentrate on building work up.
AH: when you tell clerks that you are away, they would expect you not to do work
AB: when I am on holiday out

of the country is the only time I would not be available. Otherwise if anything good came in Charlie could tell me
AH: Charlie says he noted your diary as being away. Go to your wit state para 257. You say that you were on leave from 2-4 Jan 2019 which was correct

but if we look at your income you didn't work from October 2018.
AB: correct
AH: no reference to period you were away 19 Feb-18 Mar
AB: that was booked in response to the state of my diary.
AH: why didn't you tell clerks that you didn't want to be blocked with short

cases. Only to give you big cases
AB: it was a difficult situation. I didn't want to create a fuss. I wanted to have a practice review. I wasn't happy with clerking in early part of 2019. It was quite jarring
AH: you said number of days when you weren't available for work was 32.

AB: on reflection the dates in feb-mar, I should have said let's freeze diary and look at what's going on. I didn't do that but it's a very delicate thing. Prior to going away I wasn't getting work
AH: that's not true. It had only been going on for 18 days.
AB: 18 days is a

long time for a barrister not to have work
AH: but you did have work
AB: one of those was a single day
AH: moving on. Back to diary. marked away from 19th.
AB: I came back
AH: they offered you a case when it came in. 19th feb marked away until 7th mar then on fri 8th you have

a conference
AB: I had a hearing. the clerk knew that they could call me in and that I was not away.
AH: you say you have a telephone hearing. You informed them about this hearing. This didn't come out of the blue
AB: i came back on 28th Feb for another hearing
AH: so you told

clerks that you would be away unless something good was available.
[correction 25th Feb]
AB: yes. I wanted to have something that would advance my career. The practice was that even if I was away clerks might tempt me back with something
AH: your conspiracy theory covers

the period when you were away? Is that right
AB: clerks could have contacted me. The point was that I hadn't heard from them for a month
AH: you didn't blame them for this?
AB: blame is a big word.
AH: you didn't say that you were taking time off being you [clerks] were letting

me down
AB: that's right
AH: Diary p5393 it looks like fro 8th mar to 1st april you are doing RS case.
AB: correct
AH: any complaints
AB: no complaints
AH: you were gainfully employed for that period.
AB: yes
AH: then there was period of 'keep free'
AB: that was the period

set aside for recharging batteries
AH: so you weren't available
AB: I was available to do work from home
AH: so this period of time wasn't part of the conspiracy
AB: it was time I requested off
AH: I missed one case out. on mon 25th feb the 'M' case has a hearing
AB: it looks

like it is.
AH: You mention it at 1293 of the bundle when you're taking time off. So after your break [p5395] which finishes 12 April from tues 16th you are pretty busy with a series of hearings
AB: those keep frees are not for recupperation. I would have been free for trial.

Going to 16th I had two hearings in one day to cover mentions.
AH: if we look at this yourdiary seems busy including GBH trial
AB: from 8th April to 19th April I was available for work. the short standard hearings. I covered for colleagues so I was available for 2 weeks but

didn't get work.
AH: you had a hospital appt on one day
AB: i could still have worked. Had work come my way I would have been able to have worked
AH: you were put forward for work and were getting certain amount of work and you were turning down work
AB: I was turning down short

cases.
AH: going through May. GBH case at end of April. that was originally three weeks
AB: yes
AH: that suddenly goes short so there is a gap. Moving to May there are a series of appearances in the BM trial
AB: all of those cases could have been covered by a colleague. I could

have been offered for work
AH: when you have a 5-6 day trial you don't need recharging period. You had a hospital appt
AB: yes
AH: two dates for a hearing and then on 17th another case which subsequently came to tril then 3 days of keep free

AH: your keep free days are part of your conspiracy theory. If you're preparing for a trial you can't take other work
AB: My keep free days were for admin
AH: I have taken alot of time for this trial and have had to take time to prepare. Same in criminal?
AB: you get paid for

prep work.
AH: That's not fair but that work still needs to be done
AB: I agree but you can fit prep work in around your day if paid work comes in. I would have accepted paid work if it had come up.
AH: i don't understand how you can bring keep clear days into this
AB: my clerks

could call me at any time unless I was out of the country.
AH: you are saying you weren't offered work during the keep free days because of the bad feeling about you
AB: yes
AH: that's ridiculous
AB: it's not
AH: you have a seminar and a lecture training
AB: that isn't specific

to me. This pads out the diary but isn't specific to me - offered to all staff.
AH: you have a five day trial in a london court
AB: correct
AH: that had to be prepared for?
AB: yes
AH: then there is another trial but it said 'not attending' - don't know what that is

AB: this was decided by judge without me attending I was in Isleworth for DM trial
AH: this is a huge case
AB: I was arguing an abuse of process which failed so we were then in trial next day
AH: this was big
AB: and I was taken ill during trial
AH: look at diary p5398 Ist July

says AB taken ill then three weeks signed off.
AB: I came back after two weeks. This was when I went to Kingston court in morning and Isleworth in afternoon.
AH: look at sick note
AB: yes
AH: Sick note only until 22nd.
AB: No-one asked for sick note. I booked of extra week

to recover but sick note says back on 22nd
AH: If we look at sick note p4274 it gives a diagnosis. If you are going to abort a fourth retrial shouldn't judge get correct information.
AB: I told judge that I have a condition which sometimes flares up. That note was not an attempt

to mislead judge. I have a condition connected to cancer. Sarcoma
AH: I had agreed not to talk about medical condition. I have not mentioned your condition.
AB: this is shutting the stable door
AH: if you ask a judge to derail trail you need to give right information. Shouldn't

mislead
AB: I could have written huge narrative about it. It's a serious condition but I didn't make a big deal about it
AH: you're making a speech
AB: that's not fair
AH: neither is your response. Is it fair to stop a trial without giving actual facts?
AB: agreed.
AH: did you

correct the 'mistake'?
AB: I didn't go back. I didn't think I needed to
AH: back to diary. After trial you start work again on july 26 correct? The BM case in the morning was important wasn't it?
AB: by that date it had happened earlier in the year. This was the tail end of that

case.
AH: was due to start 18th Nov
AB: no that's not right
AH: it didn't happen at that time bc no evidence was offered
AB: earlier in the year BM was in my diary. Go to 23 April that was trial of BM that was aborted

In July that was a standard appearance. I don't recall what it was before
AH: let me explain. It was due to be retried.
AB: the likelihood ithere was not going to be a retrial.
AH: it had not been determined that no evidence would be offered
AB: it was a 90% done deal at first

trial. Everyone was contacted that it wouldn't be retried
AH: on 26 the july you left hearing knowing that case wasn't going to be retried
AB: i can't say that. It was clear early that case wasn't going to continue bc principle claimant had been involved in threats to defendant

AH: Re 'S' trial. 12th August [5400] that was adjounred - moved to march 2020 and then moved bc of lockdown to 2021. On 26 July the hearing RS was going to be won as a prelude to a trial due on 12th August
AB:No no. RS was in multiple cases so it's difficult to know which one

this was. There were various irregularities with police investigation. The trial date for 2020 (then 2021) was already fixed.
AH: you were told that August trial would have to go off until 2020
AB: I emailed Michael Barret that trial had been taken off so I would take time off

AH: you took whole of August off.
EJ: Looking at the time. Can we carry on for a bit
AH: yes that's fine
AH: in august - the 9th. Trial was adjourned to 2020 then again to 2021. This was referred to in the email. You do the RS case
AB: we have to careful
AH: He was a serial

offender
AB: was aquited of all but one
AH: move to september we see you start again on 3rd sept. That's RS burglary. Ref to TT case on 6th then conference re TT on the 11th. Then another RS hearing which was an acquital. Then on 17th Sept you received instruction from Charlie.

For a 3 day case
AB: I wouldn't have been happy with 3 day case
AH: but you were offered it
AH: for the rest of teh time - you have no complaints about the rest of the year
AB: correct. I was busy through rest of 2019
AH: moving 25th nov. DC hearing starts
AB: went to Belmarsh

throughout Oct. Those meetings were unpaid
AH: I understand. but that isn't part of the complaint
AB: I think people will find it extraordinary
AH: so do I!
AH: My understanding is [bundle 3645] this is a discussion on 3rd Jan 2020 and you were reluctantly returning private case

because of C case and Charlie is still clerking you?
AB: He contacted me in 2020
AH: you had to pull out of that case because you had anothr commitment
AB: yes I'd got that from the solicitor in the DC case.
AH: you made a good impression and that led to other work but you

couldn't do it.
AB: yes
AH: you couldn't work for 2 1/2 months Oct to Jan?
AB: Yes
AH: and then another 2 weeks you couldn't work
AB: can I have a look at the diary?
AH: I'm just summarising

EJ: The claimant needs to be able to cross-reference
AH: yes madam
AH: go to p5395 you mark yourself 2 april - 12 april keep free
AB: No from 2-4 and then 10-12 april
AH: 8th and 9th not keep free
AB: two separate keep frees for different free. First for recovery and second for

paperwork
AH: 1 July - 25 off work
AB: I was sick
AH: you are off from end Oct 2018 to end of 2019 you are off for 5 months
AB: I would have to check that. I don't include the two months off in 2018
AH: I do. It affects income
AH: I am finished with this timeline

EJ: Re journalist access I need names for people who have been sent docs.
IO: we haven't received anything so we can't help you
EJ: Interesting. BC have some journalists been sent docs.
BC: reads names. Including Tribunal Tweets
EJ: note in chat room saying TT have not received

BC: maybe tech reason why it didn't go through?
EJ: Can we find out what time it was sent
BC: apparently they didn't have an email address
IO: I understood that application would come to court and we would be able to investigate who was applying. And then a court order would be

given. We haven't seen any of this
EJ: we are no further forward in understanding what has happened. We understood that third respondent solicitor would be sending it out. I'll see if I can get to the bottoe of it
BC: Further to this - 3 applicants have had objections made

against them.
AH: yes KS, AS and W (who is not in this jurisdiction)
EJ: are there objections to W?
AH: I've been focusing to other things
EJ: I understood that the solicitors should have got back about W
EJ: OK. Useful to know where we are
AH: Looks like AB will not get on

tomorrow because of two other witnesses as they will taken all day. Is that right Mr Cooper
BC: that's right
AH: So AB will start again on Wednesday
EJ: fine
[session ends. Due to resume tomorrow at 10am]

@threadreaderapp unroll please.