Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. Hopefully live tweeting of these proceedings will continue at 10am today 12th May 2022. Cross examination of Allison Bailey (AB) will continue by Garden Court Chambers barrister Andrew Hochauser (AH).

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1524423015689240580

Other abbreviations
BC - Ben Cooper QC barrister for AB
SW - Stonewall (respondent 1)
IO - Ijeoma Omambala QC barrister for Stonewall
RW - barrister assisting IO
GC - Garden Court Chambers (respondent 2)

RM QC and SH QC - Rajiv Menon and Stephanie Harrison (joint 3rd respondents along with all members of GC Chambers, except AB.)

[In practice 2nd and 3rd respondents are indistinguishable - GC Chambers are respondents both corporately and as a group of individuals]

JR - barrister assisting AH
EJ - Employment Judge Goodman, hearing the case
Panel - any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)
STAG - Stonewall Trans Advisory Group
MB - Michelle Brewer, former member of GC Chambers
MHL - Mia Hakl-Law, Director of HR GC Chambers

Now waiting for the conference host to join the remote hearing. Camera and mic off! yesterday dealt with the 'second detriment' AB claims to have suffered - that GC Chambers tweeted she was 'under investigation' when she was not.

So we anticipate today will cover the remaining detriments - the Stonewall complaint, GC Chambers upholding complaints, and finally detriment 5 - GC Chambers not complying with AB SAR

Hearing has begun but many have not muted their mics. Ground rules set out by the clerk. If any problems with connection during hearing, disconnect and reconnect. If doesn't work, email clerk whose address is in the chatroom. Please mute if you are not speaking.

Chat function visible to all but must only be used as directed by the Judge. Do not record the hearing as this is contempt of court. Members of public must not cause any distraction. You may have video on unless distracting.

EJ: please repasted your email for those arriving later. We have a lot of observers, some may be new or not remember rules. On chat room, only use this if there is some issue with technology or access to bundle.

It is not helpful and not allowed to use chat room to make observations - its like making audible comments in court - you will be asked to leave. If people post other comments they will be disconnected without further warning.

If you have a comment/request about the hearing, please email the clerk and it will be forwarded to me.

Now we resume the evidence of AB.

IO - one matter of housekeeping. First, thank you for those case management directions re chat function. But further matter - attribution of comments made yesterday by @tribunaltweets to me or IO. Make it clear neither me or RW made those comments and ask record amended.

Thanks to AH and BC for their condemnation of conduct yesterday - we are all entitled to work free from harassment.

EJ - noted. Note observers can log on with any name but do not choose a name which is offensive is harassment particularly given controversial nature of case.

EJ - it is not harassment to log on with preferred pronouns, but no need as no one will be addressing you.

Reminds AB she is under oath.

AH - please turn to bundle 618. This is one of tweets to which GC response was sent. It comes from 'Kai' (?) "I have sent them an email via their contact page which I hope might do something". Could you turn now to 2580 and scroll down.

AH - you will see at para 5 that is document at Annex A. One of ones to which response was sent
AB - I don't see GC tweet in response or time. Can't say if GC tweeted response to that particular inquiry. Can you show me GC response?
AH - just take it from me.

AH - this ended up being one of the complaints included in Annex A
AB - can we be clear? Was this posted before or after GC Tweeted reply?
AH - look at 618 you will see it has been sent

AB - I can't see the GC response
AH - I am putting it to you that this was one of the tweets replied to
AB - how? by tweet? Unless you show me I can't agree or disagree
AH - GC tweets is at bottom of page
AB - I can't see it, cut off
AH - page 617

AH - 4558, this is Sunday Times article that we looked at yesterday. At bottom of page there is the quote that we looked at yesterday from Judy Khan. You don't complain about that? You don't use this quote as part of your complaint in this case?
AB - can we be clear?

AB quotes article quote - is that it?
AH I will repeat q one more time and then I will move on
AB - I am asking you to be clear, please don't present me as obstructive
AH - repeats question
AB - I disagree. Whole package forms part of my complaint.

AB - JK said an investigation underway. There was none.
AH - I can see no reference in your further and better particulars to this article.
AB - no need, its included
AH - it does not form part of detriments
AB - don't agree, continuing act.

AB - I have given no other press interview, had much press contact
AH - your witness statement para 442 page 129. Look at earlier page for date.
AB - my page numbers are off. Looking at page 442
AH - look at date above para 435

AB - I am just reading it.
AH - look at date above it 29th Oct. Bearing that date in mind, look at para 442. Read through that para, you will see line 3 'only conversation I can think of... was call I had to journalist Sonia Poulton at Sky news, I recall conversation re prison..

AB - I have spoken to very many journalists. What I haven't allowed to happen is any one to quote me in main stream media. One thing to publish article going on record and quite another to have conversations with journalists. Trying to understand the issues or discuss issue.

AB - I don't say I haven't spoken to journalists. I haven't given an interview to anyone other than Nicholas Hellen
AH - so all done off the record?
AB - not done with any particular article. Spoken to S Poulton about a wide range of issues over 2.5 years

AB - I have not given an interview to anyone other than NH of Sunday Times. People quote my tweets, but not case I have given behind the scenes quotes, haven't allowed myself to be drawn in
AH - do you accept you have had off the record converstions
AB - don't describe as this

AB - journalists have become friends and we talk. If asked for interview, my response is no. I want this to be decided in a court of law, I trust the process.
AH - come to your crowdfunding page in due course in light of that answer

AH - main bundle 174. you list individuals who victimised you. No 19 you identify 3 including MB. para 22 reason you link all 3 is by reason of their membership of GC Trans Rights Working Group - TRWG
AB - I do

AH - you have to show they are not acting as individual member of Chambers. And in capacity of members of TRWG
AB - or in capacity of rep Chambers as a whole. I think TRWG is organisation that had become so linked with Chambers as a whole -

AB - that acting for TRWG was same as acting for Chambers
AH - not much between us. Was the TRWG acting on behalf of Chambers
AB - also were they acting on behalf of Chambers in another capacity
AH don't understand
AB its implicit, with agreement with GC management

AB - disclosure shows these three individuals consulting with Chambers about what should be said about me, therefore acting as agents of Chambers
AH - para 22 and 23 of your pleading, that point isn't made
AB - in those paras and para 23 it is implicit

AB - if TRWG fell into abeyance but its members had some official capacity in Chambers and acted in that capacity, they are not acting individually but either as active TRWG members or with residual authority

AB - there isn't hard and fast line. Even if group had disbanded or inactive, those people still had a role as members of chambers.
AH - I am lost by that answer. If TWRG had fallen into abeyance but still had official capacity, the individuals were acting as agents.
AB -yes

AB - still liaised with other groups and wider Chambers management. They didn't need to have been a regularly constituted or active group for those individuals to .... carry additional weight because of their association with TWRG

AH - reason you are putting this spin on it is that you have now realised your evidence is so thin
AB - not putting a spin, trying to explain why these were not individuals acting alone - abundantly clear from disclosure and their links with TRWG and Heads of Chambers.

AH - if group fallen into abeyance how can they act on its behalf
AB 'abeyance' not right term. It didn't have to be regularly active but it was active, had email address and members who involved themselves in how I was treated and liasing with outside world.

AH - 2088 email from Tom Wainwright to a number of others. Doing it from his personal email address. Subsequent emails, 2118, Louise Hooper does the same
AB - she is
AH - you accept individuals can act in own right
AB - I do but TRWG used their own individual addresses

AH - your case re TRWG in your statement pg 35 para 111
AB - repeat para number?
AH - you say GC suggests this was informal grouping but disclosure says from at least 2018 treated as a group with standing to engage externally... clerking support... dedicated email...

AH - like to explore that, page 124 GC bundle, statement of Stephanie Harrison para 22. "... the idea of TRWG suggested in 2016 by MB...I believe the idea was for it to be a forum for collaboration for practitioners from different legal disciplines to share knoweldge...

AH - so not a formal group, people coming together on a topic, such as anti fracking. Do you accept a number of internal groups?
AB - yes, but I don't know how they were constituted, what funding etc.

AH - she continues to say it did not have regular meetings, couple of training sessions, one on media law from Andrew Scott at LSE. Discussed on TRWG email that it wasn't limited to TRWG, any member could attend.

AH - you weren't a member and didn't attend. You can't gainsay this
AB - I am. On basis on activities of TELI at their conference in 2016 and 2017 - Chambers had gone beyond... TELI founded by MB and worked with TRWG. Sought to embed a particular view of trans rights

AB - sought to embed the Stonewall ideology re self ID and denial of single sex spaces
AH - I will come to TELI. You are saying this connection was another matter on which you rely
AB - the link is Michelle Brewer

AH - do you remember evidence of SL? He described TRWG as a loose association looking at trans rights and didn't have a budget. Look at MB statement, page 4 para 14. She says she proposed June 2016 to establish group and you weren't involved. Very informal group.

AB - that is not an accurate description. look at transcript of training MB gave that group - successful attempt to embed Stonewall perspective within and across practice areas in Chambers.

AH - but only one external training on 26 Sep 2016. A strategy meeting 30 April 2018.
AB - yes, can I refresh my memory of this para
AH - look at para 18. At no time was the TRWG subject to any formal oversight from Practice Team Head. No budget. A discussion forum.

AH - that is accurate isn't it?
AB - don't think it is. Once TRWG established in Chambers you had individual barristers associated with TRWG activities. Then able - and did - make connections without outside agencies - Stonewall, GI and Mermaids. Acting on behalf of Chambers

AB - just by saying you had this group was enough to make contact with these groups and say it was advantageous for Chambers. So not a clear line to say no formal authorisation. Barristers wanted to be part of pushing trans rights.

AH -there were 190 members of Chambers. Can we please have some structure
AB - its your cross examination
AH - if you make a speech we will take a long time
AB - you are asking me to describe. This is how you are choosing to run your cross examination

AH - have you finished? Turn to para 23. 8th May 2018 internal training programme. para 24 sets out how many people involved. your witness statement page 36. Para 117 sets out what you say the numbers were. LH, MJ, SL, JS, RT and SC. that's it?
AB I missed off EF

AB - I don't know that is only training. GC didn't disclose. I found it via youTube.
AH - I will take you to evidence. 1 training programme on May 2018 with six people. Go to MB statement page 6 she says para 25, other proposed training did not take place

AH - are you aware there was no ....? (missed)
AB I am aware now
AH - MB says at para 29 the TRWG did very little collectively
AB I can't gainsay that. But in summer 2019 GC held a well publicised event for Mermaids in association with HRLA. Links with TRWG instrumental?

AB - I don't accept clear cut line between TRWG being active.
AH - within chambers constitution, no possibility of a WG having authority on behalf of chambers. Is that what you are saying
AB - they had authority. Whether or not constitution allowed for that

AH - so they had apparent authority?
AB - if constitution prohibited it, was not a bar to TRWG in effect being a part of Chambers, as TELI was
AH - if you have group interested in anti fracking, their views speak on behalf of 190 barristers?

AB - depends on extent to which those views had been adopted by Chambers and become its corporate position
AH - those individuals, no question acting in person capacity
AB - I don't accept that

AH - that loose group of people did not have authority of Chambers
AB - I disagree
AH - TELI set up 2016. You also set up LGB Alliance
AB - Co founders were BJ and KH. i was involved in launch and first 7 months of existence.

AB - I was on steering group. Very young organisation, didn't know what we were doing beyond needing to form the group. Stunned by levels of hostility and attempts...
AH - it was simple question. Were you co-founder?
AB - I came on later on
AH -3963 bundle

AH - this was crowdfunding page that was taken down. Under your picture it says 'with other LGB rights campaigners I helped to set up LGB Alliance'
AB - question of semantics. I wasn't founder. I did help set it up. Show respect to KH and BJ, it was their idea.

AB - delighted it was set up but I don't take credit. Respect courage and foresight of these two women to break away from Stonewall.
AH - you did this in personal capacity
AB - yes obviously

AH - when MB founded TELI she was doing exactly the same?
AB - don't accept that
AH - page 3 of her statement para 8 - 24 Feb 2016 I emailed TH EDI lead at NHS trust, JB, KH and Alan Briddock and proposed creation of TELI

AH - that is no different to what you did with LGBA. These people have no relation to Chambers.
AB - LGBA didn't obtain endorsement, sponsorship or funding by GC. GC didn't adopt its positions.

AH - TELI launched at Linklaters.
AB - see the logo of its main sponsors
AH - go to RM statement page 232. He talks about 'special fund' para 5.
AB - I have paid into that fund as have all members of Chambers.

AH - at para 7 he sets out organisations that received money from fund and says criteria for funding are broad. Fund small cutting edge organisations in civil liberties. Funding doesn't mean Chambers or each member agrees with all it does.

AB - no TELI and special funding are very different. We don't contact these groups, host events for them or endorse or sponsor them. Its a fund we distribute. TELI closely associated with Chambers, this is disingenous.

AB - only any view TELI was entirely different organisation
AH - TRWG made up of small number of members of Chambers. TELI members had no connection save MB
AB - don't accept that. MB was very well respected member of GC .Her influence and adopting certain position very strong.

AB - GC adopted her position as its corporate position. That is what happened
AH - other person in Chambers involved/
AB - Alex Sharpe door tenant at Chambers, influenced MB. Tom Wainwright not on formal list, was at the Linklaters event and spoke.

AB - GC Corporate Twitter account tweeted out heavily the positions adopted by TELI. This is in stark contrast to those listed on special fund list. Not comparing like with like
AH - no where do I see you say TELI acting as agent of GC
AB - that's correct.

AB - I wish TELI was distinct from GC but they were not
AH - do you accept Trans Organisation Network is separate to GC
AB - I haven't mentioned them in my pleadings.

EJ someone has logged on as 'here we go she/him' this is provocative. Log off. Now we break to 11.09am.

AH - I am instructed Alex Sharpe not involved in TELI
AB - not formally involved but one only has to look at what MB says to see AS highly influential in TELI's positions. AS features centrally.

AH - in 2016 AS wasn't door tenant
AB - that may well be the case
EJ - didn't hear?
AB - sorry documents taking some time to load.

AH - detriment 3 at page 175. Headed 'first Respondent's complaint to 3rd Respondent' ie Stonewall to GC
AB - yes
AH - page 177, individual said to victimise you is MB
AB - making sure... not being difficult, this was KM Stonewall complaint?

AB - individual was MB
AH - I find this difficult to follow. You are going to have to help me. Page 24. Stonewall complaint to GC Turn back to page 177. MB only person identified.
AB - I can see why some confusion. I did not draft pleadings. I name MB as key figure

AB - but that does not remove the actions from Stonewall and its agents working in concert with MB
EJ - sorry to interrupt. On page 175 but my para 24 doesn't have sub paragraphs
AH - that is wrong page. Look at further and better particulars at 177 heading in italics.

AH - it says the individuals who victimised the Claimant. But go to particulars of claim page 24
BC - won't lead the witness but if he's exploring points of pleading, this specific point was addressed by EJ Stout in strike out hearing, where she records the explanation I gave.

BC - if he is to put points about pleading, he needs to take AB to judgment
AH - Mr Cooper can take whatever route he wants in his re-examination. I won't accede to his invitation.

AH - look at 176, how does this fit with case against Stonewall
IO - interrupts. Chat room has Robin White he/him, can they leave chat room
EJ - this is another attempt to have a dig re events of yesterday. Please log off

AB - there are individuals appearing to be GC feminists abusing Ms White who may be antagonistic TRA. Not clear on which side of ideological fence they sit
EJ not disconnecting people for views but those who are interfering with proceedings
IO - I don't attribute to anyone

EJ - lets get back to the point
AH - para 31, what is said is MB procured third party complaints to Chambers. But this is about Stonewall (?)
So third party complaints not in Stonewall don't fall in this heading? It's your pleading
AB - I have to defer to lawyers.

AB - these are pleadings settled by my lawyers, read in conjunction with other documents
AH - 5 Oct 2019 SK complaint re LGBT Consortium page 2329. He is writing to Head of Chambers as network co-ordinator. You are saying that is Stonewall complaint?
AB - I am

AH - then KM complaint clearly made on behalf of Stonewall. in relation to SK complaint, for MB to have procured this, she had to be acting in capacity of member of TRWG
AB - or as a member of Chambers management team

AH - she wasn't head of chambers?
AB - no but Chambers assumed MB's position as corporate position from my first protected act. Chambers adopted her position and she was acting on behalf of GC chambers
AH - that is not how it is put.

AH - go to page 177. Says MB was at all material times acting as a member for chambers.
AB - that sentence leaves open possibility that GC had adopted her position as effectively their own
AH - you are going to have to look at pleading. Go to page 177

AH - focus very carefully on the words
AB - what para
AH - are you there, I don't want any further interruption.
AB - please don't misrepresent me. Trying to find it
AH - I am going to read it very slowly

AH - 'at all material times .... MB acting as a member (?) of chambers' - word therefore refers back.. defines capacity
AB - I accept its clumsily worded pleading. MB's position on trans rights had been adopted as corporate position from my first protected act
AH - this is novel

AB - don't accept its novel. Its implicit in pleadings
AH - do you agree first thing to establish is MB not acting in personal capacity, 2nd has to be shown she was member of TWRG, 3rd TRWG acting as agent of Chambers
AB - correct

AH - all three have to be established to prove detriment
AB - if she was acting as agent of TRWG outside Chambers that is sufficient.

AH - four amendments to this case by your side
AB - take your word
AH - this is where we are after 4 attempts to plead this case fully
AB - correct

AH - have to prove SK acting on behalf of Stonewall
AB - correct
AH - XX by IO by SK, won't revisit. Got all points she made. He, in dealings with MB wasn't acting as rep of Stonewall
AB - I don't accept and have answered

AH - re KM, how does MB procure this complaint? You accept no direct contact KM and MB
AB - no evidence
AH - MB says never met, spoke, communicated
AB - I can gainsay that as meeting 23 Oct MB conveyed message to SK to write letters of complaint

AB - KM was in that meeting and it was later posted on wall. He replied 'done'. MB also targeted trans member of staff.
AH - MB acting on behalf of TRWG who act on behalf of GC
AB - I accept that's your position

AB - if MB acting as agent of Chambers that too would be sufficient
AH - then you don't need first sentence of para 33, not pleaded in alternative
AB - not its not.

AH SK has to act on behalf of Stonewall and attend as rep of TON
AB - SK announces at meeting and posts to Stonewall 'wall'
AH - so he has to attend as Stonewall rep and post on wall in capacity as Stonewall rep
AB - that's only way to access wall
AH - not at all.

AB - Stag membership linked to Stonewall
AH - that's an argument for another day. Not limited to Stonewall membership. 4th step KM sends message of support having been procured to do so by Stag wall or TON meeting?
AB agree

AH - you argue that KM made complaint because of MB?
AB - you can't confine KM actions to either MB or SK. It becomes a corporate complaint, must have been approved by Stonewall.

AH this is where I get confused page 3096. IO took you through these
AB not page reference
AH its 309 point six
AB that's very different.

AH - this is Stonewall inducing GC. Then we see para 15.6-10. matters relied on. Who is inducing who?
AB - chronology. MB requests complaints, distributed by SK. KM writes complaint, sits on for 5 days, that is inducement.
AH what is?
AB the complaint from KM

AB - KM says in terms, stop associating with AB or we will cause you reputational harm. Whole series of actions by MB and SK to get to this point
AH - are you relying on SK as well?
AB - can't rely on it as it wasn't investigated or wasn't pursued

AH - that's wrong, it was investigated and no case to answer. Threat of retribution doesn't deter summary rejection of complaint?
AB - SK did not have audacity to make threat to GC. KM and Stonewall did.
AH can we put SK to one side
AB you decide

AB - i don't rely on SK as instructing or inducing?
AH - look at detriment 3.
AB - not resiling on any of the pleadings. Not going to do it in cross examination. Take it up with my lawyers

AH - this complaint was summarily dismissed so no question of any detriment
AB - I will stick with pleadings
AH - will ask you one more time. relevant that complaint was summarily dismissed
AB - my pleadings stand. I do not waive privilege.

AH - that covers all points on Detriment 3. So move to Detriment 4. Further and better particulars at 177. Upholding of complaint is the detriment pleaded. complaint made consisted of a number of complaints?
AB - I don't follow. 11 summarily dismissed. I had no prior knowledge.

AB - had I known those complaints would be included I would have wanted to comment, I had no opportunity. Only asked to respond to 2 tweets. She included and offered narrative in final report.
AH - do you accept not all complaints upheld
AB - i do.

AB - ruling 11 complaints could not be sustained. Then Stonewall complaint came in. Discussions about what to do. In the end MS included Stonewall complaint in her report, only one not decided. That was complaint she investigated.

AH - thought this was common ground. Look at your response para 68. You say you recognise complaints had to be addressed regardless of provenance.
AB - the only complaint I thought MS investigating was two complaints from KM letter of threat and complaint

AH - that misdescribes the exercise. She found only a case to answer re two complaints
AB - I understand natural justice. If 11 complaints in report I should have had opportunity to respond. I thought they would not be included in final report.
AH - she dismissed them?

AB - she discussed dismissed complaints saying unwise and provocative. i could have responded. But she used elements of 11 complaints to drive conclusions on the 2 upheld. Not right, proper or fair.

AB - go back to top of document page 762 response to Stonewall complaint, everything in that document was about 2 tweets, nothing else. confined to Stonewall complaint as that was what I had been given to believe were only two complaints in report. She broadened this.

AB - I was never given the opportunity to respond to those complaints
AH - 'upholding of complaint by 3rd respondent' - this was a number of different elements
AB I don't know what you mean
AH Really? you don't know vast majority dismissed

AB - I accept majority of Stonewall complaints dismissed but I only gave a response to those she was thinking about
AH - title does not reflect that as only 2 complaints upheld
AB I suffered detriment by fact Chambers did not summarily dismiss all complaints.

AB I don't accept this is drafted incorrectly. Caused me damage to reputation, certainly a detriment
AH - you are not listening to my questions and making a speech
AB - please stop accusing me of making a speech
AH - you are not addressing it. It is misleading
AB - don't accept

AH - please go to your counsel's opening page 15. para 34.1. seems to be measure of agreement
AB - kind of you to say so
AH - its not being kind, its an observation.

AH - only two complaints required further investigation. That is your case. If such a fear of retribution in relation to KM complaint, it was a remarkable act of courage to dismiss 80%?
AB - MS was in very difficult position. Came under improper pressure.

AB - she pursued only two remotely capable of founding a complaint. The entirety of the Stonewall complaint should have been summarily dismissed. Malicious and malevolent complaint from start to finish.

AH - so she was bowing to pressure to Stonewall
AB - there was pressure from Stonewall and GC, Stephanie Harrison in particular
AH - para 31.2 your opening. you were asked to respond by email 6 Nov 2019. Go back to main bundle page 759

AH - look at what she says, will get in touch if I need a response before finalising report. I consider following 2 tweets in Stonewall complaint may offend CD 5,3, 8 or BSB guidance. she sets out particular passage. 'I make it plain I have not formed any final view'

AH - she welcomed you view about why it doesn't breach BSB guidelines. Affirms she has no connection with Stonewall or any trans group. Asks for response ASAP. you refer to this in your opening
AB - correct

AH - you refer to MS in glowing terms as a mentor and a friend. Instrumental in your joining GC and very supportive when you were ill. you became friends. You make no complaint about her at the time
AB -that's right.

AH - look at para 298 of your witness statement page 93. 'she was compiling my tweets by Oct 2019 which demonstrates she was not independent'
AB - I didn't know what the attachments were. Asked GC to disclose them and only did shortly before the trial. They were just logos

AB - I accept those attachments were not in fact my tweets. Before we leave this page, could you read out that short email from MS
AH - I haven't read all tweets, don't follow her, flicked through her feed. Says own views which might make any censorship impossible

AH - when tweeting about Morgan Page you had not deleted reference to GC from your Twitter bio?
AB - I did not know anyone from GC unhappy with my putting association with GC in profile. That tweet did connect me to GC

EJ - looking for convenient time to break. Return 12.13
IO - our screen has frozen, we will disconnect

EJ - is Ms IO back?
BC - can see her on participants lists
IO - I can see and hear

AH - go to page 188 para 65A think we have cleared that up
AB - remind me which document we are in
AH - reference to email you asked me to read out. You agreed nothing that she said there prevented her from acting independently
AB no I don't. Its concerning

AB - she was presented to me as someone with no connections. But she started going through my twitter feed, wouldn't have done that without concerns being expressed
AH - back to 1997. No attachments, she expresses a positive message
AB - look at email and see who copied to.

AB - all Heads of Chambers, MB and TRWG. Clear to me she was communicating to them about 'concerning tweets'. To present herself as someone independent was material misrepresentation

AH - your friend and mentor approached with entirely open mind
AB - regrettably, and she has been important to my professional development, that is not the case.

<confusion over bundles. EJ clarifies its your counsels opening>
AH page 15 para 34.3 having been asked to respond you did on 21st Nov, no complaint made by you about time given.
AB - I was in murder trial when all of this was happening, so I asked for more time
AH - not correct

AB - when I heard I was under investigation I have a clear memory I was at the Old Bailey. Concerned with getting case ready for trial
AH - I can show you in your diary.
AB - take your word for it. must have been conference

AB - I asked for time to reply comprehensively to formal complaint
AH - given from 6-21 Nov
AB -yes

AH - duties you understood you were under. Page 774 para 70 you describe yourself as someone who respects others views and takes care to consider content and tone of twitter posts. You respect protection of PCs. You said that in key note speech at LGB Alliance?
AB - always

AH - your statement pg 151 para 515
AB - <not clear about page reference)
AH - you understand we are a regulated profession and that is necessary restriction
AB - yes

AH - barristers Core Duties set out in bundle. Look at 4353. In particular CD 3 - honesty and integrity- CD 5 - not diminish trust and confidence - CD 8 mustn't discriminate unlawfully
AB - I see those.

AH - social media guidance 2027, no that 's your email, you say at the forefront of your mind. 5218 is guidance, sorry wrong reference. Try 5218 (?)
AB - correct.
AH - para 1 and 3rd line applies to you professionally and personally. bound by CD 5 at all times.

AH - social media includes posting on line, networking etc. para 2 'at all times' is emphasised. Para 3. Comments designed to demean and insult are likely to breach trust, don't get drawn into heated arguments... always take care to consider content and tone...

AH - you say you adhered to these standards at all time? your tweet you sent out, don't have year, may be 2019. Look at text. 3rd July. 'yesterday I posted that GI is comparable to extreme racism of Enoch Powell. I deleted that as I failed to make it clear GI doesn't equal racism

AH - but threats are comparable. Do you regret that tweet?
AB - I realised it should have been clearer. Deleted and explained. Prime example of me having core duties at the fore front of my mind. If any possibility of misinterpretation, I go to great lengths to clarify

AH - you accept there are limits as to what can be said
AB - I always have to act with integrity and honesty and I always have done
AH - clear you accept limits as to what can be said
AB - yes, I wouldn't use foul language, target individuals and I don't think I have done

AH - you accepted you had overstepped?
AB - this is example of being assiduously conscientious about posting in social media. If any possibility of misrep I delete. Out of abundance of caution.

AH - i suggest the reason you deleted is you felt you had overstepped what a reasonable reader thought permissible
AB- No I don't agree
AH - you accept there are boundaries
AB- Article 10 is qualified right, there are boundaries

AB - I have never crossed those boundaries in my belief and how express it
AH - protected belief is not a licence to abuse others?
AB - I have never abused anyone, have been a lightning rod for abuse

AH - ask question again, please listen.
AB - i accept it.
AH - you have a right to PC being respected so do believers in GI?
AB - not a protected characteristic
AH - they are free target?

AB - no one is a free target. But they connote violence and aggression. I have never been violent or aggressive.
AH - view about GI is protected belief?
AB - don't know. My responsibility is not to harass or threaten anyone, PC or not. I don't believe I have.

AH - your GC views are protected and those with GI views deserve respect?
AB - its belief in biology. Sex is real. That's it. Someone who believes sex is not important and people can ID into sex categories at will, I don't know if tested in the court. I treat everyone w/respect

AH - are you saying when you are tweeting about people who have diametrically opposite view, you aren't sure their views are worthy of respect and treat them differently?
AB - no. Not excuse to shut me down
AH - not what I put to you. Do you apply different standards?

AB - no I do not. My core duties don't allow that. I must act with integrity and honesty, regardless of PC. But having GC PC means I am in opposition to Stonewall proselytising. That is entirely within the bounds of my professional duties.

AH - 362. Statement by crowdjustice regarding you.
AB - that was only one I used
AH - 3963. CJ stopped AB receiving further donations, in opposition to own rules Pag 3862 they give their reasons 1st July 2020 CEO Julia Salaksy

AH - CJ is access to justice or everyone. Recognise heated debate. As platform we take no view on substance of debate. but adopt T and C re case page. AB breached our T and C and we stand by decision to remove it. some of language was unnecessarily inflammatory and offensive

AH could be considered to promote hate or harassment to minority community. Took legal advice. Gave AB opportunity to amend. we republished page with holding statement and removed her photo and name. To ensure she wasn't perceived as author, not erase her ID

AH - we are pleased AB got her £60K target quickly. We can't extend as backers need to know the purpose of further funds. We invited AB to provide amended text but she refused. Not a reflection on view of her claim.

AH - sorry for the distress this has caused her but CJ stands by decision to remove inflammatory content and proud to support access to justice. So CJ didn't think you observed high standards?
AB - no. Narrative for CJ page approved by my solicitor AND CJ in advance.

AB - they bowed to a few complaints accusing me of transphobia. All elements of CJ page saying I was hateful were where I set out being survivor of sexual abuse, that children should not take puberty blockers, etc, etc

AB - every single point CJ said was hateful - see Cass Review which found clinicians under obligation to affirm. Also prisons. Look at complaints to CJ. Far from example of wronging on my part is example of how GC feminists are very vulnerable to discrimination.

AB - I would have issued a claim against CJ but didn't want to pursue claim against them and GC. I had a case against them
AH - they took a different view?
AB - self serving corporate view realising they themselves were guilty of discrimination

AB - they had received 3 or 4 tweets saying I was transphobic or hateful without evidence.
AH - they say they took specialist legal advice
AB - we need disclosure of that. I took legal advice too

AB if you are saying CJ call my integrity into question, we need to examine this, it is serious.
AH - your high standards not served, CJ removed your page
<telephones ringing>
AB I don't accept that

AH - its a matter of fact. You continued to fund raise on this page?
AB - no. Number of people communicated their outrage. I designed my own website and successfully crowdfunded.

AH - they stopped you using page?
AB - no. They censored me. My specific objections to GI and children on trans pathway. I was not prepared to do that so I had someone build by own website
AH - we aren't materially apart. They wouldn't permit page as it stood.

AH - the reason they gave was the language was offensive.
AB - I say and many legal commentators say this was based discrimination.
AH promoted hate and harassment?
AB - their perspective. Doesn't hold water than or now.

EJ we are getting far from GC complaint and time is limited
AH - I will move on. Your response 750
AB - are you sure?
AH - no I am not. I think it starts at... one second please... actually it is! 762

AH I won't go through the 36 pages but you conclude you don't accept anything you said or posted was in bad taste or could be offensive bearing in mind Article 10 rights
AB - yes
AH - look at first tweet.

AH - 763 your understanding that Morgan Page ran workshops for sole aim to coerce lesbians into having sex with men
AB - that's right
AH - you said that was based on how advertised
AB - the cotton ceiling... yes is short answer

AH 3325 conclusion MS report, para 52. Findings and recommendations tweet 1. finds it concerning allegation of sole aim teach men to coerce lesbians... she did not see anything in publicly available material to justify that allegation

AH - no element of coercion in publicity. Planned Parenthood denies any such thing intended. para 53, read links from AB none of which provide me with detail of this workshop. Can see how name of workshop is offensive to some.

AH - in absence of material that tweet 1 is true, risk that BSB will find breach of CD5. In essence AB alleges MP encourages sexual assaults on young women, that allegation cannot be shown to be true.
AB - that is finding

AH -open to make that finding
AB - I disagree with you

EJ good moment to break. Come back at 2pm.

BC - before we break can we review timing?
AH - I will be another hour or so tomorrow
BC - some re-examination not huge amoung
EJ - who next?
AH - Leslie Thomas
EJ - if you tighten up AH. Anxious we don't have many discursions. Witness statement is long

EJ will will see where we are going
AH some of these answers rather long and we have had technical difficulties. Not the easiest XX
EJ hmmm.

IO - stonewall witnesses are are available on Monday. Not tomorrow
AH - we will field RM another GC witness.
BC - we may not finish those tomorrow but remaining Stonewall witnesses won't be a day

EJ hearing now disconnected until 2pm.

@threadreaderapp please unroll