Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning; welcome to the morning hearing on Monday 16th May 2022 in the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal. The case resumes at 10am

There is a list of the abbreviations we use (and the tweet threads from last week's hearings) at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am, and for two Stonewall witnesses to take the stand this morning: Sanjay Sood-Smith (SS) - Director of Empowerment Programmes and Shaan Knan (SK) - Trans Organisations Network Office

Rajiv Menon (RM) - QC and at the time was one of the Heads of Chambers at Garden Court (GC) may also be called

[Court is now in session]

EJ: I want to refer to Sex Matters request. We don't have an address for the applicant so I unable to send the decision to the applicant. Is anyone from Sex Matters there. Miss Forstater is here. I'll arrange for that. We could read out decision now - Miss Forstater would you

prefer that?
[Maya in chatroom - you can email and we will let the hearing continue
EJ: we will have 2 SW witnesses SS and SK this morning. There are special arrangements for SK - can I see these?
IO: these are in the bundle
EJ: Is SS online
SS: yes
[SS affirms]

IO: good morning. Do you have your witness statement?
SS: yes
IO: have you read it? are there any corrections/amendments to make
SS: yes. Para 5 - job title of Mr Member is different. Kate Budd should read Kate William

IO: any more changes
SS: no
IO: I have no questions
BC: good morning
SS: good morning
BC: you were copied into some emails re AB but you had no involvement with her
SS: Yes

BC: where can we find those emails
SS: not sure
BC: can we look at this email [refers to bundle]
SS: that page appears to be black.
IO: 4th Nov 2019 email?
BC: that's right
SS: found it

BC: were you part of senior management?
SS: yes so this would have gone to me
BC: Is this the email you referred to?
SS: the one I was thinking of had a reference to the media. [reads email] yes this is it
BC: apart from this email - you had no actual involvement in actions

towards claimant
SS: that's right
BC: we can see at para 10 of your statement that your main point is that SW doesn't hold significant influence
SS: correct
BC: you say this is absurd
SS: yes

BC: you draw some distinction between power and influence
SS: if there is a power dynamic then the DC would hold the power
BC: SW is a campaigning and lobbying org
SS: SW seeks to improve lives of LGBTQ staff
BC: one way SW does this - it offers reputational benefits to the DCs

SS: yes
BC: it can also cause reputation harm by demoting people on the scheme
SS: I disagree
BC: there is a contract between SW and GC. some of the benefits SW offers is the use of SW logo and so on
SS: yes

BC: orgs seek to burnish their reputations by joining
SS: yes it demonstates externally that they follow this ethos
BC: by getting onto WEI (workplace equality index)
SS: not necessarily
BC: people will move up and down as their scores changes
SS: yes

BC: SW has a policy toolkit to help people apply
SS: yes
BC: the toolkit shows SW encouraging DCs to use gender identity as a relevant characteristic - going above and beyond the law
SS: that's correct
BC: we see that SW definitions include gender Identity as something to be

covered by policy
SS: yes
BC: in list of egs of bullying and harrassment = misgendering and excluding TP from toilets etc for their gender identity
SS: yes
BC: SW position is that that would amount to inapporpriate conduct
SS: I think harrassment and where it was intentional

BC: SW has that in all circumstances that TP should be treated in the gender identity they have
SS: yes. We would say that this encourages positive attitude
BC: if not followed people wouldn't be able to be on WEI
SS: not necessarily bc on a points based system

BC: it would affect their place
SS: there may be points given for certain policies followed not necessarily taken away
BC: you worked in open plan office and teams would sit amongst each other
SS: you could sit where you wanted
BC: the memberships teams would discuss with other

teams about DCs
SS: I would say that's right
BC: Consultations included matters re claimant. Your team was briefed and you offered support via a/c manager
SS: yes
BC: if there's an issue with particular person you would consult?
SS: not really with particular person

BC: so this was unusual with this claimant?
IO: can you change the words you used? You said consultation
BC: I said standard practice was to engage with other teams.
SS: I disagree
BC: so you are telling us that what happened here was something unusual

SS: I don't think the email is centred around an individual
BC: you weren't actually involved?
SS: no you asked me what I inferred
BC: here's an email with redacted address but concerns Lucy Masood who had given interview to Today programme. Quotes from interview are given

[SS reads quotes]
BC: Ms Masood expressed views about concerns of Self-ID for female only spaces
SS: yes
BC: email says this is transphobic
SS: yes
BC: the company was SW DC
SS: I don't recall
BC: another email: Ms Masood carries on with transphobia

We can also see a client management handover of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
SS: yes
BC: one thing handed over was Ms Masood - someone to look her up, she is problematic. It was usual for teams to discuss problematic people
SS: that wasn't my experience.

Not standard practice
BC: you see another email arranging meeting with Fire Brigade - talks about Miss Masood being problematic
SS: yes
BC: email says we don't expect people to engage with hateful hate-preachers.
SS: we have duty of care to our staff, making sure they are safe

BC: another document mentions Lucy Masood - is it a policy to have "courageous conversation with problematic people"
SS: not usual practice
BC: these docs show that you don't just risk assess you do get involved with DCs when people are, in SW's view, problematic

SS: it wasn't a policy
BC: go to another email please
IO: can you say which email
BC: difficult because it's redacted. This shows a complaint about M&S changing rooms - SW reaches out to DCs when there is an issue in the media
SS: we will support DCs when something is in the

media
BC: your term 'support' means helping orgs to do what SW wants
SS: not really
BC: SW confers or denies reputational benefits
SS: I disagree
BC: thank you. that is all I need
JR: the DCS was about supporting staff at the companies. Not about penalising people

SS: that's right. We talked about supporting orgs to make more inclusive environment
JR: did you know that GC didn't renew membership
SS: I don't remember but it's likely
JR: was there any comeback
SS: absolutely not.
JR: were you aware that claimant says SW is like protection

racket
SS: I am aware but this is fiction. SW promotes positive inclusion - no suggestion that we would coerce companies to do things.
JR: there was never a threat to terminated GC DC membership as a result of claimant
SS: absolutely not. No such proposal
JR: did you know GC

didn't apply for WEI?
SS: only through these proceedings
JR: No comeback?
SS: no. we worked with orgs re what kind of support they wanted
JR: DCs can withdraw without negative connotations
SS: yes

JR: thank you, that's all
EJ: IO, do you need to question witness?
IO: no reexamination of SS.
EJ: you are free to go. Mr Knan is next.
IO: he hasn't arrived yet and we need to set up room as he requires
EJ: when will he arrive?
RW: he is due at 11/11.30
EJ: anything else we can

do in the meantime? Maybe Mr Menon?
AH: reluctant to put him on stand for short period of time
IO: could we have a break now while we wait?
EJ: yes. can we make room arrangements now while we wait
IO: yes madam, it involves coloured paper for the bundles[?]

[Session ends until 11.06]

[Spelling correction Masood should be Masoud]

[Session resumes]

EJ: IO what is the situation?
IO: we haven't been able to contact Mr Knan
EJ: shall we take another break until 11.20?
IO: I think that's a good idea
[Session ends]

[Session resumes - SK has arrived]
IO: one adjustment was to provide hard copies of the bundles in a format that assists him.
EJ: OK. Can I remind everyone that there was a case management meeting re reasonable adjustments were to be made, that the bundles will be on coloured

paper and that he shouldn't be required to read anything.
EJ: i see SK has someone with him
IO: this is Miss Rankin from my office - to help SK with documents
EJ: you are only helping with docs - you must not help or prompt SK
Miss Rankin: I understand
[SK sworn in]

IO: can you confirm name and solicitor's address?
SK: [does so]
IO: re your written evidence, have you read it
SK: yes
IO: any amendments?
SK: yes please. The call to Michelle Brewer change the date please from 23rd Oct to 22nd Oct
IO: anything else?
SK: No thank you

IO: I have one supplementary question. This is a phone record of MB - look at right side of page there are 2 entries - can you see those
SK: yes
IO: 2nd entry. Do you recognise the number?
SK: yes it's an old number from previous job
IO: who used this number
SK: me

BC: good morning. If there's anything unclear, please say. Miss Rankin - please zoom camera in.
Miss Rankin: we can't I'm afraid
BC: look at para 38 of your wit statement. you say you were employed by SW trans advisory group (STAG)
SK: yes
BC: STAG and memo of understanding.

Have you seen this before?
SK: I know about it but don't remember seeing it
BC: it wasn't formally adopted
SK: yes
BC: re historical background and purpose doc do you agree that SW created STAG in 2015?
SK: yes
BC: was one of the reasons to help with campaigning on trans issues

SK: you could say that
BC: this was to help SW work with trans community
SK: you could say that
BC: [reads text] to act as interface between SW and trans groups
SK: it was intending to do that
BC: was it something that STAG was doing while you were there through to 2019?

SK: to my understanding yes but not much
BC: are you sayig that it isn't something that STAG was doing or was STAG not doing it every effectively
SK: not effectively
BC: it was trying to do this?
SK: possibly
BC: STAG was there to continue to provide expertise on campaigning

strategies
SK: yes
BC: STAG were given access to The Wall
SK: yes
BC: did stag have access to help communicate with others, to discuss and promote expertise previously mentioned?
SK: I agree

BC: STAG were part of other trans groups?
SK: yes
BC: Re doc called accountability. While remaining critical friend STAG exists unter SW umbrella. Did you know in 2019 that STAG was under SW umbrella
SK: correct
BC: STAG members and chairs are accountable to SW. Do you agree that

in 2019 were accountable to SW managers
SK: I can't say that
BC: you needed to behave in a way that SW approved of
SK: I don't think so
BC: if you did things that were wrong re SW - you were accountable to SW?
SK: I didnt think of it like this

BC: SW met expenses re STAG and it's functions
SK: yes
BC: were you paid expenses
SK: maybe travel expenses
BC: re doc headed advisory group. It reads STAG will also be available for helping engage with other trans groups and other parties
SK: yes but not much
BC: were you asked

by SW to do particular things?
SK: I can't comment on that
SK: I can't see anything on screen
[a pause to see if this can be sorted]
IO: Miss Rankin is talking to IT
BC: was it your experience that you had flexibility in engagements with trans groups and other parties?

SK: we had flexibility
BC: but you were doing things on behalf of SW
SK: I don't think so
BC: On STAG website there is text that says members of the group.
SK: yes
BC: it says members were employed after extensive application and recruitment process

SK: I didn't go through that
BC: you applied
SK: yes
BC: was there a job description
SK: probably
BC: did you meet with anyone re application
SK: I spoke to Ruth Hunt (former SW executive)
BC: they wanted to check you had relevant experience
SK: yes

BC: doc headed Trans Advisory role description
SK: I don't recall it but I don't think this is the same
BC: Have you seen this before
SK: possibly
BC: it reflects the role you were doing? It says the role of STAG is to act as conduit between SW and other trans groups. Agree?

SK: yes
BC: was it your understanding that STAG members were employed to represent different parts of trans community?
SK: yes
BC: part of the point of you and them was to bring your experiences to bear?
SK: yes
BC: SW and communities were helped to get together by STAG?

SK: yes
BC: your STAG hat wasn't separated from LGBT consortium hat. You had to plug SW into your other roles?
SK: I disagree. My STAG role was voluntary
BC: I'm asking if the point of your stag role was to help SW plug into your LGBT consortium role
SK: agree to an extent

BC: look at p1486 there's an email from you date 30th sept 2019 to various people about data collection round table. some people this was sent to included people from SW
SK: correct
BC: Torin Glavin [?] was liaison between STAG
SK: correct

BC: MB and GC were hosting this round table?
SK: correct
BC: you were inviting people to suggest other possible invitees?
SK: yes
BC: on an email from MB says she would be in scotland. Suggests org/people to invite
SK: don't recall this
BC: MB had already looked at who was

attending
SK: yes
BC: look at wit state - you say 'for me GC was always one of most supportive legal orgs'. Did you think it was allied to trans right movement to which you are a part of?
SK: yes
BC: had you understood MB to attending the meetings in which you were involved as

representative of GC?
SK: yes I would say so
BC: turn to minutes/agenda please - can you confirm what it is
SK: I don't remember it
BC: it's to do with a meeting Friday 15th Feb 2018, maybe 2019. You and MB were there among others
SK: yes
BC: organised by SW?
SK: yes

BC: did MB make offers to reach out on behalf of GC to women's prisons
SK: not sure if it was on behalf of GC
BC: did you understand MB offered confidential, pro bono legal advice to group
SK: not aware of that
BC: re email chain - thank someone called Robbie for sorting The Wall

This was about giving MB access to certain parts of The Wall
SK: wasn't aware of this
BC: a table shows attendees - MB is there for GC. MB was attending on behalf of TENI[?] and GC
SK: I would agree
BC: you had a call with MB on 23 oct 2019 - same day of round table meeting

at GC
SK: that's right
BC: you have another call which was 6 mins+ long from your phone that came from previous job?
SK: yes
BC: you're not a big social media user
SK: yes

BC: you hadn't heard of AB before MB told you about her
SK: yes
BC: MB said AB had been sending transphobic tweets
SK: I don't remember exactly but yes
BC: MB told you about possible action against AB and she told you that she wanted to get message out for people to send messages

to chambers
SK: yes
BC: she wanted you to mention this at meeting where SW were attending
SK: she would have known this, yes
BC: you refer to messages of support that MB wanted from you. Did she want you to encourage complaints against AB
SK: complaint word not used
BC: do you

agree she wanted messages of concern about ABs tweets
SK: yes
BC: she wanted these to push for formal action against AB
SK: I don't recall exactly
BC: you produced some minutes
SK:not minutes, notes
BC: you produced them
SK: yes
BC: you did them after the meeting

SK: yes they took me a while
BC: you were conveying a message from MB?
SK: yes
BC: you said in notes community encouraged to write to GC heads to express concern about AB transphobic tweets
SK: correct
BC: MB led you to believe that AB was transphobic

SK: yes
BC: when you followed up on meeting, one of first things you did was to post on STAG Wall at SW
SK: yes
BC: you say 'I posted on STAG wall because I felt it was useful to get message to other trans groups'. The stags biz was to help SW put forward trans agenda

SK: yes
BC: you used the wall for the purpose that SW intended. To liaise with other networks to push SW's agenda?
SK: yes, I guess so
BC: Your post on the wall (25 oct 2019) says GC barrister have always been allies and have flagged issues in chambers. You must have been told

this by MB
SK: yes
BC: it says that action will be taken at GC re AB. This must have come from MB
SK: yes
BC: MB had made a point to you about this
SK: yes
BC: you had a roundtable and you say Kirrin and Josh
from SW attended. You put this to add weight to what you were saying

SK: yes
BC: MB told you that she encourages the trans community to support action against Bailey.
SK: yes
BC: You say that supporting action against AB was messages of support were sent against claimant
SK: I suppose yet

[correction - yet = yes]

BC: on STAG Facebook page. It says trans ally barristers are hoping to take action against AB. MB was hoping that messages of support would help withthis action
SK: I suppose so
BC: you direct people to the wall where you had posted advice on how to

draft the messages.
SK: yes
BC: on FB you direct them there to access the link
SK: I guess that's what happened
BC: on FB you conclude 'let's not let Bailey get away with it'. That was encouraging messages to get action taken against AB
SK: it was encouraging people

to write to GC yes.
BC: another member of STAG wrote 'done' on the wall - this was Alex Drummond (AD)
SK: yes
BC: On FB AD posted a link to Pink News referring to AB having been thrown under the bus by her chambers. AD wrote: "got a result". Did that reflect an intent on your

and AD's part to get this into the media
SK: I can say what AD meant
BC: if someone says "got a result" that means that it was pushed by someone into the media
IO: he's already answered the question
EJ: would you like a break?
SK: yes please
EJ: let's resume at 12.40

[correction: SK: I CAN'T say what AD meant]

[Session resumes]

BC: we were looking at your concluding words "let's not let Bailey get away with it" This was a well-worn thing of organising a campaign against someone who disagrees with SW or better yet getting their company to do so
SK: I disagree
BC: you had a meeting to discuss consensus

re sex and gender
SK: yes
BC: it reads only sex is recorded not gender. Terfs want sex. You were reflecting commonplace description of GC people as Terfs
SK: yes this was used as a description
BC: Terf was used as a term of abuse
SK: I disagree

BC: you may not have seen this email but the claimant refers to the Economists guide to this issue. Groundrules include Terf as insulting term and sometimes used to incite violence against feminists. From 2015-19 Terf had been used as a term of abuse to silence people

SK: I disagree
BC: you say you don't use social media much but you say after call with MB to check ABs twitter account. Did you read comments and responses to her tweets?
SK: no
BC: so you didn't see the abuse she received?
SK: No I don't recall that

BC: there is a document assembled by MB of communications between her and others. She adds a message from you. It refers to round table and says that you referred to Terfy barrister and had encouraged messages against her
SK: I disagree with gender critical people

BC: you are using the term as a slur
SK: not as a slur in my point of view
BC: MB says Terf is derogatory so she doesn't use it. It is a slur
SK: not in my view
BC: you refer to people with her beliefs in this way at meetings
IO: which meetings please
BC: the roundtable

SK: I took notes so someone may have used term but I didn't
BC: it is the sort of way you talk about AB and people with her views
SK: I don't recall talking about her in this way
BC: your position is AB is a terf and he beliefs shouldn't be given any credence

SK: I disagree but I don't agree with gender critical people
BC: you followed MBs encouragement and wrote to chambers.
SK: yes
BC: you write expressing concern about ABs social media messages. I have worked with many trans inclusive garden court people and conclude that

transphobia against TPs is on the rise and I find AB's comments as transphobic. You regard her views as unacceptable and transphobic and that's why you wrote to chambers
SK: I was showing support as asked to by MB - I found AB's views unacceptable

BC: on your email to people inc people at GC. You didn't use web link from your wall post, did you?
SK: I can't recall
BC: where did you get the email addresses from
SK: I must googled them
BC: why didn't you use your link?
SK: I don't know

BC: did you get the addresses from MB or anyone at GC?
SK: no
BC: No further questions
EJ: We will break now - Mr Knan, do not talk to anyone please. We resume at 2pm
[Session ends]

@threadreaderapp please unroll