Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. Its Friday 13th May 2022 and we are back in court at 10am to continue our live tweeting of these proceedings. At least one further hour of cross-examination of Allison Bailey (AB) by Garden Court Chambers barrister Andrew Hochhauser (AH) is expected.

Witnesses from Garden Court Chambers are then expected to take the stand: Professor Leslie Thomas QC (LT) and Rajiv Menon QC (order uncertain).

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

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

Yesterday’s tweets and a longer list of abbreviations can be found here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

EJ: We are resuming. Reminds observers of use of chat room (technical issues etc only).

People who use chat room for commentary will be disconnected. Email clerk if you need to contact tribunal. Your screen name must not be something that could be deemed harassment - again we will disconnect you.

Any housekeeping? AH: You will notice in the chat yesterday an application by TT and Sex Matters for permission to download bundle. I rec'd skeleton argument this morning

It seeks to revisit your order of 3rd? May. Have you seen it? EJ: I haven't. When was it sent?

AB: I wonder if AH can finish with me and then we could revisit this?
EJ: yes I need to read skeleton, lets park for now
AH: What is said at para 2 is that they want a decision on the papers. Yes I suggest we park this. I need to read this. Can we discuss at end of day. EJ: yes.

AH: good morning
AB: good morning
AH: do you recall writing to Liz Davies about ST interview that DM should be sacked immediately?
AB: I had cordial relation with DM but I know that TRA target the marketing teams within orgs

They are the ones that get most scared of media onslaughts. DM I think played big role so I did say I think he should be removed
AH: Its not correct you didn't try to get anyone fired then?

AB: No I met with David and told him and then I withdrew the request?
AH: how?
AB: to David (DM) who was on the management team
AH: did you tell LD you withdrew it?
AB: I assumed DM would say we have smoothed over

AH: when did you meet with him?
AB: not sure we met in chambers
AH: Date?
AB I dont have a date, weeks later
AH: On Gatley issue, turn to 4244

I asked you about the investigation by Mr Menon, I asked whether cordial interview, you said yes.
AB: not an interview we met and talked
AH: Fine, look at para 14. he says I asked AB a no. of Qs. You at 14 b and c, you thought it was objectionable he waited 12hrs.

You confirmed your soliticior was considering a number of experts so 12 hrs delay didn't matter?
AB: It did. eventually I got Gatleys recommendation and passed on, my solicitors had independently looked. We did in fact use Jeff. We did use him as an expert.

AH: the delay made not a jot of difference
AB: it did, I am in the position to know you are not
AH: turn to 182. I asked about names at para 47 to 53. Look at title of PCP - treatment of these people of GC beliefs, Go to page 19

IO asked about the beliefs you include.
AB: what beliefs?
AH: para 8 reason for misgivings is that she believes 1st respondents campaign is sexist and homophobic... you were taken through, remember?
AB vaguely

AH; you added 'and binary' as an amend remember?
AB: yes
AH: you say those individuals aware you had these beliefs?
AB: Operation of PCP is I am GC my email in Dec 18 communicated that
AH: that belief includes each of the sub paras at a to f?

AB: that includes Stonewall. 1st respondent argues one thing to have , one thing to express. I express largely due to stonewall proselytisation. They mix up those two consequences of my GC belief

AH: in your email you dont express as GC?
AB: the name GC is not one I would have liked, its belief in biology that's all it means. this is terminology we have, belief in biology and that its important.
AH: those individual were aware you had those beliefs?
AB:yes staightforward

AH: lets turn to 2nd PCP

go to page 195 of bundle.
AB: PCP 2?
AH: yes. title covers 2nd and 3rd respondents and direction of complaints process. GCC determined the outcome of the complaints presented ? is that what is meant here?
AB: I will leave the drafting to my lawyers.

AH: I will take you through para 75 to 81. 1stly you rely that chambers is a SW DC? Nothing to do with process of complaints?
AB: it does. being a DC means SW has certain expectations of chambers. they could and did exercise reputational protection or harm.

you pay for mark of approval. I do say the DC scheme was key as was our relationship with SW.
AH: so by being a SW DC, SW was directing the complaint process?
AB: yes
AH: Mr Lue said nothing to do with the investigation?
AB: I dont know one way or other, he wasn't neutral early

on and misled me about taking back my concerns to management.

AH: you put him forward as one of the people
AB: I did as he had lack of candour initially so I had to assume. the particulars have to be limited necessarily. I cant get everything in there
AH: Mr Lue said he had nothing to do so how can he be operating this PCP?

You say due to his liaison on SW DC scheme?
AB: yes. And I expanded to remind you he acted with a lack of candour, so reasonable to assume this continued
AH: next para is the meeting of Tom at GC and presence of Shaan Knan (SK). but that is not dealing with the process?

AH: SK was not involved at all in the consideration of the complaint was he?
AB: M Sikand (MS ) is only person I know of
AH: yes and she dismissed his complaint
lets go to para 77, MS sets out her position

AB:No not clear.MS presented herself to me as someone who had not taken a view on my tweets.She knew I would trust her.

You took me to her email 'concerning tweets' with TRWG as recipient with MS saying she is going through my tweets.So wrong for her to pretend she was Independent

AH: lets go to para 77?. 1st MS report. SW complaint by KM was not presented until 31 Oct. Decision to deal with all complained together. She dismissed majority of KM complaints. only two left
AB yes
AH not indicative SW directing
AB disagree

AH; clear that MS looked at each tweet and formed a view?
AB: a view in collaboration with SH in particular. but also Mark W and Judy K and LT
AH: no independent ?
AB: MS report was not independent. influenced by SH, MW and JK.

AH: SH made certain amends to draft. She writes back on 11 Dec (pg 3296). [shows independence]
AB: number of back and forths on amends, one of the principal amends is SH adding info on planned parenthood.I dont say lightly but plain as say not independent report, these heads

of chambers writing it together
AH: adopted by heads , written by MS
AB: no, I still dont know route [to finalise and get to me] but heads involved. 2 judges looked at this, no way can be seen as independent

AH: recommendation to take down 2 tweets. Not MS view?
AB: MS trying to do the right thing but I think she came under the power dynamics. SH and JK are senior QCs. At the time MS was not a QC. There is strong arming going on led by SH

AH: MS would bow to pressure?
AB: political reality
AH: not an answer
AB: there are power dynamics that are very very hard to resist

AH: you rely that MS stated in an email to David M and MHL re SW DC scheme. Go to page 226, one of your protected tweets. What you say '@ stonewall UK made it respectable for fascistic ....' there were no complaints about that. look at MS evidence
EJ: can I pause Ive only just..

[AH takes EJ to bundle ref]
AH: page 402 of MS witness statement
AB: are you there madam?
EJ: no
BC: are you in main bundle? its the GC witness bundle
EJ: yes

AH: she says 'I thought there might be more complaints about 2 Nov tweet....' she didn't think you should be maligning SW and anticipates further complaint... she was concerned about language ... How is your tweet not offensive language?

AB: SW think they have a monopoly on views [expands] , these are truly fascistic tactics - I stand by it
AH: go back to main bundle 916

you make a lot of email title 'concerning tweets' but 're' shows its a reply email.
AB: I accept MS is replying here
AH: MS quite clear in that email and attributing attachments like you did earlier is not case as you now agree
AB: I didn't say the attach were tweets

we just asked what the attachments were. we cant be criticised for asking for them.
AH: please just focus on q
AB: we assumed tweets turned out not
AH: you accept not attached
AB: yes

AH: 195 to 196 of the pleadings. The matters you rely on for PCP 2 are in paras 75 to 81

AB: correct
AH: look at page 661 of main bundle. you make clear on 25 oct 2019 that you aware of your rights in 1st para?
AB: yes
AH based on advice you had?
AB yes
AH: you could have bought a direct discrimination claim then

AB: no, by the time I served, Maya Forstater had lost her initial case. I had to decide whether to queue behind her appeal

I didn't know this case would have so many prelim hearings at that time. I instructed by team to amend the claim soon after Maya won at EAT but diaries mean couldn't get matter listed until later in that year

AH: so we agree it wasn't until 30 Sep 2021 that application to amend was made?
AB: agree, we gave notice sooner but first date we could meet for prelim hearing ..
AH: im talking about letter that you sent on 30 Sep and you could have sent that earlier

AB: no I was aware we had applied to amend our claim as early as we could when there was the next prelim hearing after Forstater
AH: not dictated by hearing date
AB: I dont know that.

I could have been queued behind Forstater and she could have lost at EAT and then my case delayed further...

EJ Stout concluded no prejudice to any side. A 'labelling exercise'
AH: if labelling you could have done it earlier

[AH taking AB to a new doc reference.]

BC: I think we were sent a version during yesterday's hearing and more docs added in the afternoon
AB: ah so not my fault
BC: Mr Daly just told me he doesn't have latest version. [BC explaining when sent so the updated document can be found for AB]

[waiting for document and reference to be found/sent to AB]

AB : this was my tweet with initial crowd funder
AH: you use 'terf' but you said it was pejorative?
AB : in the way oppressed groups reclaim language eg 'dyke' for lesbian. for me to use it is one thing , if you used it to me maybe not

AH refers to tweet by 'terfymcterf...' who has tweeted for TT ?
AB: yes... reclaimed. [word queer discussed]
AH: queer not used as pejorative?
AB; some people find it offensive, its also used as a mobilising term for gender ideology - to transgress boundaries, the Judith Butler

sense of use. Nothing to be gained by saying we are using terf in the way abusers do.
AH; you are ok to use the word here then?
AB: in that instance I used 'terf wars' as term of defiance.

AH: that concludes my cross
AB: thank you, its been a pleasure.
EJ: no questions from panel. BC?
BC: Look at page 2464 in main bundle

BC: what support are you referring to here?
AB: people outside of chambers
BC gives another ref. You were taken to this email a few times. its says 'ways you can safeguard your future safety', you said not sincere or sympathetic. you said it needed to be read in context

BC: go to 2166. your email to bar council. [reads out] what impression if any did you form as to JK position on the threats you had rec'd?
AB: she was not interested, I was shocked
BC: 2164. you email JK, 'have you looked at who is sending these tweets' etc Then go to 6402

which is JK's reply. JK says nobody is trying to destroy your career etc. what impression did you form when you read this?
AB: lack of sympathy, saying I bought it on myself

[Counsel helping EJ ensure she has seen the references referred]

[some discussion on differing bundles and pages running out] AB: should someone read it out? BC: yes [BC reads out the emails]

AB: Ive been embargoed for almost 2 weeks. Might I have 10 or 15 mins with my legal team?
EJ: yes, restart at 11:30

Resuming. JR: Madam , we have sent you the 22 April bundle. can you use this one?

EJ: ok [checking everyone is on the line.]
JR: IO is muted
EJ: no, can you speak IO?

[waiting for technical issue to resolve]

EJ: now going ahead with GC witness?
JR: yes, Leslie Thomas QC (LT)
LT takes the oath

JR: Turn to tab 18 at back of bundle, your statement
LT: page number?
JR: 423. Is this your statement and contents true?
LT: yes. JR: over to BC

BC: email to all by Mr Lue (ref given)
LT: Im sure. At GC we have a problem in terms of emails to all. Not proper email discipline. Not uncommon an email to everyone in chambers is missed. there are lots of these types of emails.

BC: Im sure. Mr Lue describes benefits of SW DC scheme. eg business development, SW will refer work

LT: I was travelling a lot a the time on a case, large number of emails every day - unless its an area that specifically relates to my practice, I make a note and move on
BC: you were a Head of Chambers at this time?
LT: yes

BC: so you also need to pay attention in that capacity?
LT: I should do but not to say I dont miss things
BC: we're all human. AB responded to that email. She objects with legitimate concerns?
LT: er yes

BC: page 1085, email from JK in which she replies to Mr Lue (1070)

JR: Ive just had an email that says there are two joiners starting 'SIP' which apparently is live-streaming. can you disconnect madam? EJ: yes

BC: It wasn't inappropriate for AB to reply all ?
LT: Agree
BC: were you part of discussions of Board that approved association with SW?
LT: I dont think I was
BC: at 1070 Mr Lue points out that SW is a mainstream org involved in campaigns that GC aligns with.

JK says do not agree with AB position and not representative of chambers
LT: yes
BC: if you had disagreed with JK you would have done so?
LT: yes

BC: so clear chambers view differs from AB?
LT: yes
BC so endorsing SW collab?
LT: yes

BC: JK supports strategic partnership and aligns with SW campaigns?
LT: can I go back to that email

Forgive me for reading aloud. [LT reads Mr Lue's email]

BC: im focussing on bit in penult para where 'involved in campaign work this chambers aligns itself with' he goes on to say looking to deepen links. 'strategic partnership' So when you read JKs reply she is plainly endorsing a deepening link and strategic partnership ?

LT: not sure. clear that at some point a decision was made to assoc. with SW. I didn't know the detail at the time. I already indicated at the time that I wasn't living in the UK and travelling at lot. Also I had a big case. Can you assist me when the decision was made?

BC: the evidence so far is that Mr Lue was told by Glen Fletcher that it was approved at board level, initiated by the family group before....
IO: someone has joined with an offensive name
Panel member: ive disconnected

LT: my position, at this point in time I had moved out of London. Was doing lots of travelling. I wasn't as up on some of the chambers matters. So, my colleagues would have had a bit more responsibility helping me. I dont know whether you can read into JKs email in the way

you do.
BC: but you didn't say you disagree?
LT: no. this is why we have 3 heads. I dont second guess them all the time. we're a team.

I thought all JK was saying is that agreement has been made and were not changing it
BC: page 562. you see email from David Neil. He says upset by AB email. Considers it offensive. You agreed with earlier that her concerns weren't offensive. So Mr Neil is saying GC belief is

offensive?
LT: yes
BC: he says chambers must be trans inclusive. AB didn't say it shouldn't be did she?
LT: agree

BC: see JK response to DN where AB is criticised?
LT: no, she is pointing out that tone of some members of chambers might give rise to email storm. im sure you have experienced this. someone with legitimate view but the way they express gives rise to tension...

It wasn't a reply all. Judy is trying to manage the situation. You dont know this but DN is a vulnerable members of chambers and a junior e'ee - extremely vulnerable.

BC: you agreed with me that AB didn't suggest chambers shouldn't be trans inclusive?
LT: Judy is managing the situation here
BC: That wasn't my q. JK is endorsing Ms Brewer yes?
JR: Sorry I think you need to how him the ref
BC: let me conduct how I wish. Clearly here JK

endorses Ms Brewer. LT: [missed] BC: this is a supportive email to DN and invites him to complain?
LT: its important for chambers to ensures complaints are responded to, she is clarifying if it is one. DN is vulnerable remember

BC: hes a qualified barrister isn't he?
LT: you can be a barrister and be vulnerable you know this
JR: I think we might need to go into closed hearing if discussing DN in this way
BC: Im not asking for reasons for that, just the email

BC: page 560. lets focus here. you were not merely expressing general support for Mr Neil were you?
LT: I was
BC: you were saying heads disagreed with AB
LT: no.

I put the email this way because I thought DN was going to resign in part because of his vulnerability
BC: you dont need to make the statement about AB to support him?
LT : agree but in that moment I thought DN was going to leave. DN doesn't complain about anything, meek and

mild character. For him to say something ....
BC: are you now telling us its not true that heads of chambers disagree with AB?
LT:no
BC: You and JK in the exchange are implying chambers think AB is transphobic ?

LT: I dont accept that. I hadn't done a poll of all of chambers on this issue but I didn't want to lose an e'ee
BC: page 570? see email from AB 15.12.2018. She says please consider extra security. She's clear she is concerned she may become a target (not has)?
LT: yes

BC: she knows people who have been targeted
LT: yes
BC: [ref] exchange between AB and JK where JK dealt with practicalities of AB concerns. Page 567 you then join in the correspondence.
LT: yes

Im asking (7 days later) has she been targeted
BC: you say did you get any threats. now as you recognise AB hadn't said she had been targeted had she?
LT agrees
BC: if AB had become target she would have said?

LT not sure
BC: you were picking a fight?
LT: no it was out of concern and doesn't just affect AB but also receptionists. I do take objection that you are saying Im doing to pick a fight

BC: Im exploring a case. It reads you are setting up a straw man in order to knock it down?
LT: where, look at the email, its concern only
BC : the straw man is the suggestion there has been a threat when she already says there hasn't been.
LT: its an honest and legitimate q

BC: page 566 she responds. Due to time I cant read out all of emails, please read to yourself. I will go to bits of it.
LT: ok
BC: AB explained to you why she was concerned about becoming a target

E.g. use of terf as a slur
LT: yes
BC: she also says she knew a TW online also a member of chambers who used the term terf

LT: yes I didn't know terf word at the time
BC: yes but she explains it. you dont say that's concerning a member of chambers using abusive word?

LT: no
BC: you say your email is informative but doesn't answer q
LT: barrister style. I asked about threats because impacts all staff. not trying to knock her down

BC: you dont explain that to AB. You say barristers have a combative habit but you were supportive to Mr Neil?
LT: Agree but I make the point the Mr Neil is vulnerable
BC: 573. AB says AS has deleted most recent tweets. She reiterates her concern in any case

LT: I recall asking AB do you want to make a complaint against AS (Alex Sharpe).
BC: yes lets go to it. AB had told you that terf is a pejorative?
LT: yes

BC: and gave you a link to website terfisaslur. did you look at that?
LT: cant remember if I did.

I wanted to know if she was making a complaint because if not I was going to leave it. Because I was going into biggest case if my life

BC: ok let me put this to you, there is a marked difference in tone vs JK asking DN about making a complaint?

No expression of sympathy.
LT: AB was saying she was alarmed in relation to a member of chambers. You are comparing my response with Judy's to David. We're different people with different ways, so unfair comparison.

I wasn't unsympathetic I would have dealt with the complaint. I think she indicated she wasn't minded to complain.
BC: yes lets look at that email. do you agree the message is to remind you about word terf?
LT: agreed
BC: reminds you of her concern about AS tweets that use this

term? LT : yes
BC: gave you examples of AS tweets, did you look?
LT: cant remember I think so
BC: did you check AS twitter profile?
LT: dont think so

BC:[gives another ref] we can see here AS is retweeting , do you recall seeing this?
LT:not sure
BC: if you had you would have seen AS using terf?
LT: yes
BC: do you agree AS identifies terfs as people 'who hate'?

LT: different ways to interpret this tweet
BC: page 491. AS again. terfs exclude TW. 492 another tweet from AS with word terf and 'love over hate'. No other way of reading then terfs are unethical haters?
LT: yes
BC:so AB has told you terf is abusive and anyway AS says unethical

haters. so did this not cause you concern?LT:at the time I didn't go over in depth. Im not sure I recognised what AB was complaining about, she didn't want to make a complaint.BC: page 572 again. you agreed with me that AB also said this is something that affects rep of chambers?

LT: yes
BC: [gives ref]. email some time later, David dM email. 'Ive noticed she mentions GC in her twitter bio but doesn't say her views are her own.' You dont know if her bio was different in dec 2018?

LT: I dont know
BC: AS tweets caused no concern from heads because you all understood that GC was aligned with AS views
LT: not true.

ABs tweets had caused complaints. No complaints about AS tweets, huge difference
BC: 5910. Another tweet that AS sent. You can see that @ Garden Court Law appear in a list of people tagged?
LT: I see that. I dont know where that handle goes
BC: this is chambers twitter?

LT: there are several chambers accounts
BC: who manages?
LT: David dM (Marketing)
BC: with oversight from board?
LT: Im not sure there is that level of oversight

BC: do you follow the @ garden court law account?
LT: No I follow very few people. Im not somebody who reads twitter every day. I use twitter to get out messages for my work.

BC: if you or other heads saw the GC account doing inappropriate things you would expect to be told?
LT: yes ofc

BC: here we can see the GC account tweeting out article AS asked it to tweet out?
LT: yes
BC: so must have been aware terf word being used
LT: yes but they might not have known what it meant
BC: Ive been told you do follow the GC account ?

LT: I dont know, not how I use twitter
BC: Reaction of heads to AB concern in Dec 2018 would have been apparent to whole of chambers?
LT: No. Not all responses/emails here were reply all.

I fundamentally disagree
BC: well what everyone certainly knew was that heads had not responded at all to her email [on SW assoc.]
LT: radio silence is not giving a view
BC: there was a range of view in chambers. AB raised concerns that as far as you know had not been discussed?

LT: I dont know
BC: you weren't involved in any
LT: no.
BC: the response you sent to DN was copied to Head of HR
LT: yes

BC: In chambers, word gets round very quickly if someone has done something wrong?
LT: Ive learnt things during this case I was unaware of eg Mark Gatley remark, antisemitic issue. So not how it works

BC: there was an email from Ms Brewer we saw in JK correspondence. lets go there. 906. Read through it
LT: done
BC: its a slap down of AB concerns?
LT: certainly doesn't agree with AB

BC: Ms Brewer (MB) was senior in crime team?
LT: I thought immigration?
BC: point is senior
LT: I dont know her call tbh. I know she's now a judge but at the time I didn't know her call

BC: she was influential and respected?
LT: all members are respected. Im not sure if MB was on management committee
BC: when heads do not respond and initiate a discussion on serious concerns AB has raised, everyone knows AB is slapped down.

BC - aware of time
EJ - yes lets break
JR - madam ive just been told a serious issue has been raised. we need a private hearing at 2pm

EJ: right. let's have a private session at 1.50pm. Public session back at 2pm.

@threadreaderapp please unroll