Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon of Friday 13th May 2022 session where we will continue to hear from Leslie Thomas from Garden Court Chambers.

Catch up with this morning here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1525030…

Abbrevs:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant

BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB

SW = Stonewall (respondent 1)

IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW

RW = Robin White assisting IO

GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (R2)

AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC (R2 & 3)

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
DL: David Neale - barrister GCC
LT: Leslie Thomas of GCC

We begin. EJ is checking the attendees relevant are here.
EJ: we have 230 ppl in hearing, just looking. MR Thomas will continue to give evidence. We had a short hearing privately because, 1 person giving evidence has been subject to abuse and threat on twitter.

EJ: Anything intimidating a witness is wrong and shouldn't be done. The point in hearings of disputes is to do in a peaceful way. Considering action to be taken.

We resume
BC: you were aware Chambers aligned itself with miss Sharp. Page 5907

BC: (reads) true GCC sponsored conference?
LT: erm. Short answer is I don't know as didn't attend. Looks like from GCC account and symbol.
BC: founded by MB
Lt: don't know
BC: and for trans rights
LT: don't know who that is

BC: 5921. Series of tweets during conf. Quoting MB about govmt and self determination yes
LT: yes to what.. yes to MB saying it, can only read
BC: you didn't spot any tweets from GCC Corp acc expressing these views
LT: just returned to work from time off from ill health

BC: 5817. In July 2018 did u notice GCC RTing a tweet from TELI labelling an incident at Prode as transphobic
LT: didn't know TELI was

BC: were u aware of Pride incident
LT: didn't hear
BC: 'get the L out' had been criticised did you know?
LT: no
BC: 378

BC: you knew of TRWG
LT: yes
BC: can see ur copied into email in May 2018 in which MB explains meeting with external trainer who may provide training
LT: yes
BC: she's explaining about general interest
LT: yes
BC: 405

JR: can we go back to email and wasn't read out correctly
BC: I was summarising, hope it wasn'tmisleading (explains)

BC: 405. You endosed initiative MB proposed.
Lt: (reafs)
BC: So you must have read email
LT: yes
BC: and endoring training and also TRWG?
LT: endorsing what is in email

BC: 602. Top of email chain at 597. In it u can see MB describes herself as part of working group specialising in trans rights work. U knew that was purposenof TRWG?
LT: believe so
BC: know for a year
LT: believe so
BC: u as one head of Chambers approved TRWG doing that work

LT: yes
BC: because of breadth of those practice themes more targeted business development is done thru smaller groups
LT: not always. Sometimes individuals develop niche area. Known to happen. Doesn't have to be formalised

BC: but TRWG was on behalf of Chambers?
LT: yes
BC: by end of 2018...suggest Chambers had overtly adopted TA position
LT: I don't know what you mean by trans activist position

LT: for u to say Chambers had adopted view, I didn't know that policy
BC: won't go thru again. Do suggest when the dispute happened re SW, and lack of response to MB email, it would have been apparant that the claimant was out of favour?
LT: sorry it would have been apparant?

LT: don't accept at all. With respect u are trying to make jump that isn't there. When we get email disputes and happen often, half the time individuals say can't you reply, or exercise more control.

LT: Then some in Chambers just switch of... our clerks aren't interested in these issues. Clerkrks aren't looking through GC and Trans IDs.
BC: 5948. Do you recall women's task force production?
LT: yes
BC: context that women weren't allocated work in chambers

BC: it's not relevant so I don't need to hear the history of WTF.
LT: proposition isn't correct
JR: can he answer
EJ: I don't want us to go down a road we don't need to
BC: 5956

BC: sub para b...(reads)
LT: mine is highlighted
BC: don't know where that came from
BC: (reads about WTF) do you agree indicative of the assumptions at GCC were known to affect how ppl are clerked?
LT: yes. What WTF did, made GGC look at disparities at alloc of work

LT: surveys of women in Chambers
EJ: sorry to intercut LT...just focus on Q
LT: I think yes...erm...there were disparities in...in...figures needed to look at.
BC: 5959

BC: (reads about female clerks) we can see from report these informal relationships xlerks have with barristers affect how work allocated
LT: yes
BC: and same as Chambers policies. Clerks and barristers socialise
LT: yes
BC: and influential associate with clerks
LT: not true

LT: clerks socialise with barristers, Senior clerks socialise with senior barristers, friendships made in all sort of ways, not based on seniority, could live in same place and take tube. When u say 'tends to be' just not true.
BC: not my Q

BC: said influential not senior
LT: who do mean by influential
BC: one example is Judy Kahn and Colin Cook are close
LT: yes but would u say I'm influential as chair coz at the time we 3 heads and chair was me. I didn't socialise with clerks.
BC: sub para g same page.

BC: (reads "flawed way to allocate workplace) do you recognise that's an inadequate way to clerk someone?
LT: yes
BC: means matching clerk carefully with barrister and sell them
LT: agree more effective way

BC: fair to say, after claimant fell out of favour, u and other heads, explicitly made it clear she was out of fav.
LT: absolute nonsense. AB was a friend of mind, she's a eomab of colour of is fantastic. She wad my mental at a time when she had a med condition similar to me

LT: she asked me to diversify her practice, I took AB under my wing, I trained her, didn't have to. She came along on Rodney case and was brill. After I was bigging her up. I don't do crying. When criminal work came first person I'd mention is AB. No way I'd be saying that...

LT: it didn't happen
EJ: thank u and will reassure we have read your witness statement. Move on BC
BC: response tweets sent out by GCC. Need to look at chronology. Before let's about chambers and fair process

BC: 4390. Complaints procedure that u followed
LT: yes
BC: we can see someone says not a great fit as directed at clients against barristers but apply generally
LT: yes and fair
BC: para 4 defines a complaint

LT: yes
BC: So at the very least to be valid complaint has to be in writing, addressed to HOC and ID claimant. Wouldn't cover anon complaints and not tweets
LT: agreed
BC: if there complaint under this, we can see para 7 and 8

BC: (reads paras) so it's not automatic an investigation
LT: yes
BC: prelim decision has to be anything that require investig and if not one option to HOC is to say unfounded and reject
LT: correct
BC: para 12 please (reads)

BC: "complaints kept for 6 years" that's comprehensive confidentiality provision
LT: it confid yes
BC: protects both complainant and subject
LT: er....(pause) I think this...I think...I read this as confidential for person making complaint
BC: doesn't sat that
LT: no

BC: if u were subject ud expect to be treated confidentially
LT: yes
BC: it's plainly intended to cover all aspects of complaint
LT: (paise) yes that's what it says
BC: it'd be contrary to this provision to make public announcement about investigation?
LT: I...I don't...

LT: it depends on the Situ...I know ur talking of principle...but Chambers had never endured or experienced before. In part due to nature of twitter, AB tweets and twitter storm that resulted. I agree that this ...we were trying to make this policy fit the media age and erm.. but

LT: but this issue being confid did not come to our mind considering damage to Chambers rep
BC: 843. This is an email from MS reflecting back on process. She says " as we know tweeting were investigating someone is departure from paractice"? Agree?
LT:we'd never done it b4

BC: problem created for yourselves that you've announced publically as you have to post about outcome
JR: he wasn't in this chain
BC: wasn't suggesting he was. Exploring principle and he answered

BC: do u agree that if u depart from normal practice the very least u would expect from ur Chambers is courtesy to be told and comment?
LT: yes...yes...I believe JK was contacting AB but was unable to get through.

BC: this is Mr Diminez. He sets out for 3 HOC the issue
LT: yes
BC: first u knew
LT: yes
BC: referred to tweet of LGBA and then refers to statistics of likes and comments. U aux fait to know significance?
LT: no
BC: won't explore

BC: he says can't identify tweets. There's a link and I assume but don't know there were screenshots. Did u look?
L/: can't recall.
BC: he says a number highly critical bit don't mention GCC
LT: yes
BC: also notes positive response of AB position

LT: this depends where I was...was I in the country at the time?...
BC: taking u through points atm. It identifies tweets in support and goes on (reads"contradiction"). When u read it was clear that Mr D was stating a fact there was a contradiction. Fair?
LT: yes
BC: does reflect

BC: does reflect Chambers position
LT: no...no.. that's not what DN saying...pointing out ppl were saying contradictions.
BC: para 3. "Notes some ppl doing it aren't reputable". Tells you ppl making points by twitter aren't reputable.
LT: says some

LT: read the next...
LT: no no...we will not get thru ur evidence and I'm taking YOU to partic parts...if ur counsel think unfair can pick them up. Imagine para "I can see how this is problematic o trans and LGB issues:?".

BC: he's saying he disagrees with ABs views.
LT: no
BC: now para 49 you tell you were busy.
LT: important
BC: you've told and don't need to again
BC: u didn't read tweets?
LT: believe so. Read DN summary

BC: u took DN assertions at face value
LT: I was being advised by our marketing director who was advising HOC as to what was going on. Its important to look at what I say on para 49. You'll see when this kicked off I was involved in international travel between 3 countries

LT: and working on big case
BC: you've told us. Not challenging or criticising it. In that business I'm exploring chronology to explore rationale about sending tweets. Page 2017 please

EJ: 5 minutes break.

We are back.
EJ: want to mention to legal teams that my clerk still hasn't had skeleton argument to consider public access. Send to Holly metcalf in next hour. LT we have busy schedule. Very very important finish evidence next Fri.. we have read WS just focus on short answer

BC: page 2017, will come back to earlier paras. First after u recite Bar Standards. In context of guidance u say (reads). I appreciate u framed them as Qs but suggest comments show readiness to label claimant as discriminating
LT: not at all. The very opposite. I'm asking Qs

LT: point out to colleagues this is what needs to be looked at..look at last para I say "if potential" and say I haven't read tweets and others can complain. Strikes me as BSB guidance and not making determination

B : u say you haven't seen tweets
LT: not all of them
BC: BSB guidance on DM. Do u agree that guidance and core duties have to be read under articles 9 and 10
LT: yes
BC: not unlimited rights
LT: yes
BC: uphold profession but not comment on public interest

LT: tone is really important especially in our profession
Bc: little scope to (missed)
LT: I. .I....you still have to have regard in public profession. What you say is important. FOS is important and how you say it

BC: understand and exploring. Do we agree barristers are entitled to engage on topics that are controversial and express views.
LT: yes
BC: including topics that may be offensive
LT: yes

BC: final BS guidance cannot be read as precluding barristers from saying anything deemed offensive
LT: not disagreeing but adding even by BSB this is not easy provision. Times change. What may is consider Ed offensive yesterday may not be tomorrow. Not easy.

(Part missed)
BC: do u see he says loads of tenants who mention on twitter profile and tweet in personal capacity. Was at that time standard practice for Chambers to do that
LT: no wasn't a standard practice.
BC: there was no prohibition?
LT: correct
BC: and loads did?

LT: some did some didn't
BC: 695.
LT: email from Liz Davis (LD)
BC: yes (reads) it's right as matter of fact that member of Chambers involved in campaigning work and GCC does not police?
LT: (pause) erm. When u say GCC doesn't police. Not in sense that we go round and fill...

LT: questionnaires but if comes to us someone's cause is contrary to chambers is to ethos of GCC
BC: So LGBA
LT: no erm..responding to ...obviously GCC doesn't want associate with someone, extreme example, member of national front

B : so does ot restrict?
LT: no. General understanding ppl are committed to general ethos of Chambers bit not policies.. we.. we..we dont have members monitoring twitter account.
BC: 443. U say what was clear that SB tweets were potentially damaging to gCC and she should remove

BC: just at point of principle. Take u to ur constitution 4276. I couldn't see...could've been screen drunk...couldn't see about reputation. Happy fir someone to jump in
LT: can't just take u to it sorry
BC: here a statement of general purpose, (reads)

BC: General ethos?
LT: yes
BC: So beyond that let's explore general principle. Is it ur understanding that Chambers positive position no corporate stance on sex debate and TR
LT: yes
BC: as collection of barristers even if some want work un field that wouldn't stop expressing...

BC: ...views
LT: example. I don't do crying. But previously some ppl took a view didn't want to be pushed to do cases involving sex offences...others wanted to

BC: understand Chambers pos which is .. when u talk about rep damage that can't mean rep damage because clients might view upsetting
LT: exactly

BC: (missed) or claimant shouldn't be allowed to do this because we mustn't upset transppl who are part of group then Chambers in aligning with group
LT: not right and not what happened

BC: Mr wainwright writes to HOC, including you (reads about AB "part of anti trans group") and that is damaging rep yes?
LT: yes
BC: 597. Here we draw comparison to Miss sharp earlier where u and colleagues did nothing (reads "We will speak to her")

Bc: immediate response is we gonna take action which is completely different from miss Sharp
LT: no
BC: must indicate you spoke to JK yes
LT: yes

LT: I think I was rung up and just so happened guidance had been issued. Very coincidental.
BC: u say u were drawing to members of Chambers but wanted claimants attention
LT: no. Everyone's attention. Trying to manage a situ

LT: couple of cases where ppl had fallen foul of SM guidance and I thought let's just get them out I didn't identify anyone.
BC: not suggest u did. Q was it was sprouted by wanting to draw ABs attention
LT: everyone including AB

EJ: is that an implicit yes?
LT: everyone
EJ: is that what prompted you?
LT: er..(paise) reason I pause is because I'd regularly get new guidance out and what I don't know and don't remember when guidance came out and was councidental
EJ: I see

BC: 923 note for chronology. Claimant responded after guidance circulated saying she has at front t of mind and targeted at her
LT: yes and she circulated to everyone chambers
BC: 245. JK responds for HOC. Says "more than one complaint on trans"

BC: but no complaints or tweets had been drawn to your attention
LT: not correct...page here
BC: no that's other email
LT: I certainly know complaints drawn to attention
BC: seen any?
LT: not sure. Think ones I had seen were ones drawn to attention

BC: para 2 of JK email. Confirms asks u to circulate as she's drafting response to claimant. Then says "tweets undermining TG work"...so Chambers is concerning with underming of TRWG
LT: not how I understand it at all

BC: 244. Mark Withers replies (MW) about twitter storm...I suggest this is first mention of complaint
LT: not sure
BC: (reads) none members read complaints
LT: yes
BC: had u even read tweets
LT correct
BC: had you?
LT: don't know

BC: (reads about Pink news article and complaints policy) if HOC haven't seen complaints then follows the suggestion u might tweet out about AB can't be based on any view as to merit of conplaint
LT: don't know what I'd seen and not my email

LT: what I do know is shortly after
BC: ill go on but stick with me. U are part if this group. U agreed the first decision that has to made before investig is whether has merit. So idea person is under investigation suggest another reason
JR: being misrepresented

BC: haven't put wording yet
EJ: continue
BC: to do that before point in process suggests another reason for tweet
LT: look at marks email. He's saying he's asked DN to tweet response. Not agreed when
BC: keep tracking through. 2043

BC: miss hackle law email you were keen for us to read....

(Missed)

LT: don't know where I was
BC: 2060. Mr Diminez writes and has located complaint....do u think that when JK wrote earlier re complaints meant tweets
LT: don't know.

(Missed)
BC: and that's what claimants views did do
LT: this was Q raised by director of marketing...when prevailing view and you mena concluding view I disagree.
BC: 2056. JK says (reads about removing tweet) then says "dissociate from her comments"

BC: this was true response be ause u thought AB response was contrary to Equality Act and views transphobic
LT: no
BC: (reads "things can't be done" you reply " yes it can)
LT: she can remove ref to GCC and doesn't need if tweeting own right

BC: unless u think her views are contrary else you'd not ask her
LT: I repeat I was being advised from my marketing director on no.of complaints on twitter and writing to Chambers. Part of complaints of 3 that came in were in re to GCC breaches of EA.

LT: I'm trying to advise to frankly protect AB and Chambers and nullify Situ in real time. This is not because I think AB is transphobic.
BC: 209. Email from you "damaging to firm".. u hadn't at that point moved to investig?

LT: I'm asking...look...way it works I.. normally Mia notifies complaint need sto be investigated...all I had done..I'm asking...er.. where an investigation...that's what I'm doing
BC: yes the Q is YOU hadn't moved to investigation

BC: you say its serious against EA. are you familiar with EA and its application?
LT: no
BC: (reads about EA and rep "key issue signed up to SW diversity Chambers) so a key factor intro'd is chamber relationship with SW

BC: all tweets directed at GCC. Page 6355- 6358 There are series of tweets here did you look through
LT: don't remember
BC: I've counted and 42 tweets from 26 ppl. If those are all directed at GCC would it surprise you as low number?
LT: high number

BC: tweeters seen as not reputable.. would it not have struck you with hashtag #peakterf and #transphobia (reads some tweet) ..that this looks like unpleasant twitter pile on to member of your Chambers
LT: (pause) I don't know. .i...I.. some look...erm..636 last tweet

BC: did u understand it was tweets like this that were to be responded to when u sent out?
LT: these tweets in relation to letters received.
BC: Mr D attaches complaints on 6369. Run to 6372 and 4 tweets. One was anon and not with policy?
LT: correct

BC: this tweet about LBA
LT: yes
BC: 6371 is a tweet from carl and someone called Tracy and that again only has one link to LGBA. Take a mo to compare Carl and Tracy tweets - look similar?
LT: yes

BC: pretty quick exercise to look at and see part of coordinated pile on and specifically all saying claimant shouldn't be allowed to be with LGBA
LT: don't accept a quick exercise. U have for this case. To look properly wouldn't be quick.

BC: 620.. we see Mr D offering you say you're doing nothing or tweet to say serious concerns (reads). Now u were well aware on this issue anything u put out would gain considerable publicity
LT: yes fair

BC: 2061. Email from Miss Hackle Law and she picked up on two options and she says "heads need to do per policy" had anyone considered policy?
LT: don't know
BC: had you?
LT: can't remember. Was about to travel

BC: before investigation that exercise needed to be decided to take action didn't they
LT: yes
BC: 6265. (Reads about tweeting reply "our replies will certainly be RTd") you knew be wide circulation
LT: already accepted
BC: about distancing from claimant

LT: not sure that's right
BC; in your counsels opening subs at para 93 it said "was felt ppl who made complaints should be assured..." that's not right is it. Tweets weren't complaints
LT: hang on never agreed tweets wouldn't be investigated
BC: but they weren't?
LT:I don't know

BC: you said it was the policy
LT: I don't say that we wouldn't
JR: I'll deal with this in reexamination
BC: i hope you do. you weren't interested - u wanted to tweet to distance from AB
LT: not right at all
BC: 6084

EJ: how long?
BC: another half hour
EJ: 5 minute break

We are back.
EJ asking for docs and has searched mailboxes.
RW: we will do that
BC: 6084. Withers emails, seeing what's being throught about, and AB is asked to delete refs from twitter and no media convos
LT: yes
BC: not told substance of complaints
LT: correct

BC: the way she is treated is entirely different from anyone at GCC
LT: first time it happened
BC: asking her to take action on tweets but not GCC taking action. True?
LT: how do u mean?
BC: you said u got in touch to tell her

BC: and noone tells her she's under investigation
LT: OK. It says we need to investigate
BC: detriment were exploring is sending tweets out saying AB was being investigated. Not whether she needed to be. U agreed earlier a matter if courtesy you expect to be told?
LT: I did

BC: and here's and opp and you didn't
LT: OK
BC: noone is saying they're going to call claimant and tell them
LT: u don't send an email..just go ahead and ring
BC: 2072 please

BC: 2073. MR D circulates drafts of tweets and says "safe to assume may find way to press". U knew it'd be circulated to twitter and press
LT: what DN says. Accepted what he said

BC: JK approves tweets and then you approve
LT: no you've misread that you've got mark... JK...are happy with wording. Shortly after say I'm gappy
BC: that's what I put to u
LT: sorry
BC: had still been no decision ast ro investigate?

LT: don't know.
BC: page 612. This shows us the context of tweets replied to. We can see one suggests LGBA contradicts legal rights. Tweet from LGBTForum describing a "transphobic exercise #shameonyou"

LT: looked through them yes
BC: 612. First tweet. Read them in that context we've just looked at. (Reads) shows concerns responded to aren't concerns in tweets but it is?
LT: doesn't say
BC: deliberately lending credence to discrimination to tweets its responding
LT: no

BC: read in context GCC not taking neutral position
LT: it's not
BC: (reads) Read in context rhe inplication it's not what claimant was doing
LT: that was GCC reiterating what it does

BC: Mr D tells us in his WS that tweets were sent between your approval email and this email. He says "would u be OK to send to AB and say..." so u did know that the idea of sending the wording if tweet was very much an afterthought

LT: didn't know that.
BC: Withers says can one respond if you can. U should have known as he's asking u to do it
LT: er...right
BC: it's fair to say over next few days your involvement was limited
LT: abroad.
BC: attended by telephone

LT: I was abroad.. think Caribbean.. I think...
BC: do u recall AB was very upset by response tweets.lT: I think so...think so
BC: and lack of support for her
LT: cant recall detail. Have to forgive me. Chrono is all wrong in my head.

LT: don't know if she'd said legal action
BC: she did...(missed) 2460 thought you said you'd attended.
LT: if I have said that then an error. Don't remember in any event and looks like I wasn't there
BC: get minutes?
LT: tonne of reading

BC: one point...2461.. "in response to concerns by Lucy Wibberly" " claimant NOT being investigated" so I am right that when sent tweets . The stage you'd reached of policy had not in fact been reached
LT: it looks like that

BC: reality is response tweets were kneeler to distance
LT: don't accept. Put to me twice. Don't accept
BC: and sent to agree she was transphobic
LT: no
BC: an present transaction is view of this issue
LT: no. We'd never been here before.

LT: Wasn't TRWG. That certainly didn't even enter head.
BC: now to MS and contains put forward. Do u recall there was convo about new twitter thread AB published
LT: I do remember this.. had just flown in from country and had to go to bradford

BC: MS just rang to say of course a breach of BSB. (Missed) she asked because of position on BSB
LT: yes.bC: what was considered was to add to thread or other action
LT: not right at all. I...I.. sorry..on train I got msgs to contact...in relation..to...er...whether I knew.. erm

LT: MS tells me of tweets that AB had written new tweet re facilties tendencies or tactics cling SW fascists. I make off cuff remark in 1 min telephone convo and comes back to disagree but tone.. right? I wa making clear I didn't want to be involved with complaint process.

LT: (reads "just asking for name"
BC: and if u had just provided a name but you didn't. U offered a view without read material and influenced about BSB
LT: there was no complaint
BC: u had been asked to recluse yourself and u were talking to investigater putting view about policy

LT: I don't think it's appropriate even if u hold the views AB hold to go round describing orgs as fascists. That is potentially offensive and crosses line.
BC: let's look at tweet 2535

BC: series of tweets no doubt strongly criticised SW. U have to read you'd agree a set of statement together as a whole
LT: I agree
NC: describing as a whole how SW has created an environment in which nasty abuse happens
LT: I agree

BC: the bit u were willing to take out of context and express a view about..."SW made us respectable for truly fascists tactics..." knowing what u now know about abuse lesbians and redeems get.. its acceptable AB to say SW has created environ?
LT: no and secondly

LT: I made it clear ...was a phone call. Not me looking at tweets and selectively saying this. It's being described
BC: proper answer would have been.. "I'd need to see it in context" and was your willingness to regard AB as transphobic
LT: I play no part on any decision in any

LT: of this...I had not formed view. Just responding to what I was told and I don't believe it's appropriate for barristers to go round describing that
BC: I put it to you that's not what she did but we've been through that. Those are all Qs.
EJ: IO anything?

IO: late in the day and sorry for further time. Page 63 . You'll know this AB reply from SL announcing SWDC. You said you'd not been instructed by SW and weren't aware of their work
LT: correct
IO: 2 things AB says

IO: "SW has been complicit..." was that pos that u were aware SW adopted?
LT: no
IO: and when AB says SW threaten did you know that
LT: no
IO: fair to say u don't know what SW did
LT: correct. I'll just add. The...one of reasons why allegations made is a nonsense because so many

LT: diverse..I dont have time.. if you know how many groups there are...to allege we adopt view of one group and AB knows its nonsense.

JR: you were asked about Miss Sharp. What was her status in 2016?
LT: door tenant I think
JR: also asked about MB and whether in criminal team

LT: I thought immigration practice
JR: criminal or not?
LT: immigration
JR: was she on management committe?
LT: could be wrong don't know
JR: cast list and she's not on it
LT: don't remember. Important because BC said she was influential in chambers

EJ: we've hot the point let's move on
JR: don't have ref. U were asked about training in 2018 and think with Prof and media training...come back to that...then page 378. Email from MB about organising training with Andrew Scott about defamation. What was nature?

LT: human rights, data protection and media
JR: lovely. 5218. This is in context about guidance and article 9 and 10. Para 2 and u were asked if limits. Would u describe limits?
LT: bound not to behave in a way to diminish trust in confid public has..conduct in appropriate manner

JR: page 4276, u were asked about rep damage. Para 1.1 "each tenant member.. required to comply with rules.. " what does that amount to?
LT: not to bring Chambers into disrepute.
JR: next page 2110

JR: asked about there being no exercise being done at this time...could u read and explain what your understanding was being done
LT: jK is explaining process to AB, collation, furnished with complaints but dealing with other matters.
EH: we've been told yes
LT: two probs.

LT: one is resig of CEO and second a prob with a contract. Signif issues same week.
JR: next 2201. Email sent by JK. Explain what ur understanding
Lt: JK explaining to AB that we'd received email criticising our conduct, says won't remove tweets. Says wording was discussed

LT: also making point we hadn't done anything to compromise her safety
JK: interested in investigation. Page 2202
LT: "we'll send AB materials"
JK: got to GGC bundle and MS statement. Page 398 para 25

JR: she says timing about when. Tell us when?
LT: that happened erm.. on Friday 25th Oct
JR: it was put to u tweets weren't complaints. Page 6363. Tope tweet from Kai and a form underneath. Comparing and contacting via bundle is difficult. Go to 2579

JR: look at complaint 5. Is that the same complaint we've just seen?
LT: think it might be but need to compare
JR: go back to 6363
LT: does look same

JR: 2579
BC: look at 2572 it's the Carl complaint and I was right what I put to witness. It's Carl on twitter (reads tweet) so it was a complaint via email posted as screenshot on twitter
JR: may be point for subs. Look same to me. Is BC saying not
BC: yes look at not anonymised

BC: 2572 u can see one posted on twitter is same as Carl complaint
A voice not sure who: yes.
BC: we can infer person was Carl as complaint identical
JR: that's the point I'm making. I want to carry on. That is the point. This one from kai is same at 2579. Same words

BC: I put that to witness
JR: not committing with pointless argument.eJ: when u say pointless argument do u mean dispute
JR: no...I wanted to make clear.. now
BC: there is a dispute...no misunderstanding. The one investigated came via email and in tweet is a screenshot ...

JR: it doesn't matter. Kai is...there is an overlap. I'm moving on. U were asked series of Qs and now 2110. Q u were asked were she wasn't being told. Explain that
LT: er. Sorry.

LT: everything being furnished and collated.
JR: read out
LT: (reads "dealing with a number of important issues").
JR: go to GCC page 189, WS of JK. Contact was put to u sending wording was an afterthought
LT: this was evidence I was given earlier JK was trying to call AB

JR: para 65.
EJ: about calls going to voicemail
LT: thought I gave that evidence
EJ: next ref
JR: 2092. That's the email ref to calls. Lastly to page 3325

JR: at page 3311, u weren't involved in the investigations and u were asked about lines being crossed. This doc is report of MS and summarises tweets
BC: this witness has said he was not involved. An opinion is being asked not evidence
JR: I'll skip then. no more Qs

AH: next witness is Mr Mennel. Did you say evidence was finished by next week?
EJ: 27th
AH: ah that's two weeks
EJ: still tight. Still can't find emails and I'll be looking at things I have receieved

IO: one matter about witness order but understood Sw witnesses would be interposed before Mr Mennel
JR: that's rights and BC will probs be most of day and have Mr Mennel standing by.
BC: i think I'll be under 2 hours but famous last words.

AH: I'll have Qs of (missed) which have special conditions.
EJ: we know. (Missed) That's all for today and restart 10am Monday.

@threadreaderapp please unroll

WTF = Women's Task Force

Typo corrections = "AB was a friend of mine. She's a woman of colour and is fantastic. She was my mentee at a time..."

Name correction.
* Mr David De Menezes - Head of communications and marketing at GCC

Name correction
*Mr David De Menezes - Director of communications and marketing at GCC

DN - David Neale - Legal researcher at GCC

HOC - Head Of Chambers

BSB - Bar Standards Board

Typo correction
*BSB (Bar Standards Board) guidance on SM (Social Media)

Typo correction

*Tone is important and how you say it

Name correction

*Mr Menon - RM - Rajiv Menon - QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GCC except AB)