Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon from the 17th May hearing of Allison Bailey's case against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers. This morning's thread is here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1526481…

[Court resumes] Maya Sikand QC still on the stand.

EJ: serious matter. Messages pasted on FB page of one of the witnesses - threats. One person has been identified and has been listed as viewing the proceedings. Investigations underway

BC: look at p2488 email you sent to miss Harrison and MHL and others. In it you cut and paste passages from GC complaint procedure and made comments
MS: yes - including para 8
BC: your first comment - please read, relevant section. You had got impression that process fell within

procedures
MS: I want to make sure that I have understood process & where I fell into process
BC: [goes through complaints process]. The final decision rests with heads of chambers
MS: about how to resolve complaint, yes
BC: first question - can it be determined without

investigation?
MS: yes
BC: It might be obvious from complaints that is has no merit for example
MS: not done like this. Investigation would be done. Policy envisages doing interviews etc
BC: if you are H of C you don't need to do more if you think there is no merit

MS: as I understand it - there is always a proper process so both parties know what they've done
BC: complaints procedures says the decision is: is this something I can resolve or does it need investigating?
MS: I suppose so
BC: you well understood that the question to trigger

para 8 was could this be resolved or did it need investigation
BC: you were under impression that this question hadn't been addressed. You said we have to be consistent - in response to tweets?
MS: must have been
BC: look at p6 line 5. email from Liz Davis. You saw this on 30th

MS: yes I replied
BC: she set out her view that AB's involvement in LGBA was fine and says that AB in her tweet takes a view on gender and sex but this is not a problem. LD recommends stopping investigation and tweeting support for AB
MS: yes
BC: email addressed Mia All

JKs email says you will have seen LDs views.
MS: I can't answer for other people
BC: not hypothetical. Your understanding of policy was that it would be allowed to make a decision on a complaint quickly
MS: if HofC took on a job, they would sill go through a process

BC: you say re LDs suggestions that you disagreed with what she said
MS: I disagreed with the wording. I dismissed complaints as with no foundation. Chambers had published their position
BC: you weren't just disagreeing with wording but also her suggestions. your view was 'we are

where we are so let's carry on with the process
MS: it would be up to HofC to decide what to do
BC: it was sent to you previous day - you had had a day and were busy
MS: yeah, that happens
BC: I know. Go to p111 supp bundle - 30th oct from MHL writing to AB about your appt

BC: you are being asked to do more than the policy says - you're being asked to see if it was with merit. Policy says you should have been just determining the facts
MS: I was delegated to look at whole thing.
BC: the decision whether an investigation was needed was left to you

MS: yes
BC: go to 1st draft of your report. Para 5 you say the delegation to you was not to investigate facts as in para 8 of policy but left to you to determine whether complaints were valid.
MS: I suppose

BC: at this point you only had annex a complaints
MS: yes
BC: you decision was that it was apparent that they were focussed on tweets re LGBA. That tweet was not in breach of guidance according to you
MS: I gave it a lot of thought
BC: not suggesting anything. Using your language

- it was not in breach of guidance
MS: yes it became clear to me
BC: so you dismissed those complaints without investigation
MS: if investigation involves interviewing someone or asking for response then I didn't need response from AB. I didn't think there was anything so didn't

trouble AB. There was nothing transphobic there and I set this out. Language may be provocative but not problematic
BC: email from you - circulating 1st draft of your report
MS: yes. second one setting out Annex A. Included David for fact checking. Asking for report to be checked

BC: that draft of the report you noted that there is an ongoing issue about AB's tweets about SW. This is a reference to a twitter thread sent on Nov 2 by AB.
AH: this isn't the first report
[pause to sort docs]
BC: can we agree that as of 4 nov consideration was being

given to how to deal with 2 nov tweets
MS: yes, yes
BC: one of the options was to include those as part of the investigation
MS: no no not on the cards. Only things was if they triggered out responsibility to report to BSB
BC: was it not an ongoing issue and whether there should

be an investigation
MS: no
BC: re email from you - you say in looking into complaints I've noticed thread about SW. So you were reviewing ABs twitter
MS: yes I looked at her feed. to see what she talks about - which seemed to be primarily about sex vs gender
BC: did you look at

replies to those tweets
MS: i think i would have looked a commentary
BC: did you look at replies to tweet about LGBA launch
MS: I think David gave me a summary
BC: did you look at the replies
MS: I may have - can't remember what they would have said

BC: look at some of the tweets please...abusive words that appear. Let me know when you're done
MS: I mean...I can't tell you now that I saw any of these
BC: do you recall seeing lots of responses to ABs tweets of these kind
MS: you only look at the next response

BC: the responses follow straight after tweet
MS: I'm sure I would have reported if I'd seen them
BC: turn to tweets
MS: I've already told you I haven't seen them - you want me to look at them anyway
BC: want to know if you had seen specific tweets
MS: already said I hadn't.

BC: didn't see threats?
MS: I relied on David to flag anything - didn't know about threats
BC: 'I'm going to bust you with a stick, you arseholes'
MS: I didn't see these and I said in report that I hadn't and that David might have seen them but didn't say
BC: contect of reviewing

ABs twitter you came across ref to SW and you say SW made formal complaint which I included here. She shouldn't be maligning them. It was in your mind that GC were SW DCs
MS: yes
BC: bc GC was a SW DC - AB shouldn't be maligning them
MS: anyone that we have connection to

shouldn't be maligned. Issue is whether is crosses BSBs line
BC: maligned includes strong criticism?
MS: no - strong criticism isn't enough
EJ: let's take a 5 min break - rejoin at 3.03 please

[session resumes]
[sound of cat]
EJ: sorry, it's my cat. I'll mute
[laughs]
BC: go to communciation from MHL about SW complaining.
MS: I had a quick look and there were loads of complaints
BC: not good bc you were mindful of chambers position with SW
MS: not at forefront

of my mind. Mia didn't seem too concerned. I just thought urgh...another complaint, lots of complaints. not safe at GC. I dismissed most of complaints
BC: you were member of trans rights working group
MS: yes
BC: email from MB to trans right working group (TRWG)
MS: i want to

look at email showing all recipients
BC: looking at email it was sent amongst other to TRWG and heads of chambers and MHL. So you received this as member of TRWG
MS: yes and I responded to it
BC: read whole email please. First bit says that TRWG has liaised with SW and EHRC etc

Says we as chambers we want to work closely with trans rights. you will have read this
MS: flicked through it
BC: as far as MB chambers was committed to chambers working with LGBT and working with orgs like SW
MS: yes, I don't think there's anything wrong with that
BC: your reply

is that you had read ABs tweets, you'd checked tweets. You don't say you disagree with MBs views of what chambers should be doing
MS: I said there wasn't anything we could do
BC: you don't say MBs views differs to yours
MS: I've always know that chambers was committed to

advancing rights of marginalised groups
BC: implication was that censorship was a good thing
MS: Honestly, that's ludicrous
BC: re discussion of SW and complaints - SH emails in response to your 1st draft report. Asked whether the SW complaints and tweets breeched BSB complaints

MS: in first report I focussed on oct tweet even though I was dealing with everything. It was a bit incoherent
BC: In bundle you see that email from you
MS: yes
BC: and then go back to email from SH in which she cut and pasted SW complaint. she said it includes a number of

posts inc the morgan page tweet. In her view it breeched guidelines
MS: what she's raising is incoherence of my report. The opening line says we have received number of complaints inc 3 NGOs inc SW. I then say those complaints were received bc of ABs tweet in Oct. this was wrong

bc SW were concerned about Nov tweet
BC: you reply - fine I'll excise that one and we'll deal with that separately. Problem is it will have to be given to AB. You didn't want to show it to her
MS: reluctance was having to do more work
BC: you email again saying wrongly ignored

some which were potentially breaches. MHL say can deal with SW complaints plus poss more. You said the more you look the murkier it was
MS: I may have been reading SW complaints and links to her Twitter feed
BC: you say you had no idea that she was slagging off SW to this degree

You said this bc chambers were aligned with SW
MS: no i thought there was some offensive stuff from AB. I didn't know about the whole opposition to SW
BC: you decided collectively to deal with complaints together
MS: yes

BC: in your final report you say it my be relevant to note that chambers is SW DC programme and is proud to be. Why is this relevant if the question was whether AB had crossed a line?
MS: I was considering complaint from SW so I acknowledged it
BC: you said you were very precise

MS: I'm a pedant
BC: you say it might be relevant to consider that GC was in SW DC programme
MS: I've got no personal affiliation with SW but I should've mentioned GC having one
BC: email to AB: notifying her of 2 tweets that you wanted a response to and you identified that BSB

social media guidance was relevant
MS: yes
BC: inc the duty not to discriminate. you were asking her to prepare for a poss finding of breach. KM said the two tweets were evidence of transphobia
MS: yes
BC: AB was asked to address potential finding that she might be discriminate

against transpeople and you asked to address this
MS: yes and I think she did
BC: you got ABs response in November and when you wrote email you had only done a quick read
MS: yes
BC: your reaction was that language was emotive and evocative and includes personal and

sensitive disclosure
MS: yes
BC: sensitive disclosure included her personal experience
MS: yes didn't have to tell me about sexual violence. Didn't need to know that to see whether her tweets breached code
BC: from her perspective after being call transphobic that she should

prove that her beliefs are sincerely held and give you the roots of those beliefs
BC: you said it was personal and irrelevant. Don't need to have this experience to be GC but if they have beliefs sincerely held - she was going say way
MS: I didn't need to know that - I didn't

question whether her beliefs were sincerely held - didn't need to know her past
BC: you were outraged that AB should accuse GC of harrassment
MS: I was taken aback - she mentioned corporate harrassment. She accepted that there was a policy but she didn't like us to investigate

her in accordance with the policy
BC: she responds saying the complaint from SW was because of my beliefs and she quotes EHRC.
MS: yes there was another comment about harrassment
BC: yes. repeats that SW complaint is harrassment. GC made repeated investigations on me

she accepts that complaints have to be looked at but she says that they could be dismissed and that GC weren't doing this
MS: i thought she was wrong and sent her all complaints
BC: no inconsistency with her position - she accepts that complaint need to be addressed but GC

investigations were furthering SW agenda. It should have been dismissed
MS: don't accept that. She called process wrong bc GC hadn't had complaints but we had had some
BC: your reaction was to make no reference to inconsistency - you react in horror that she might make

allegations against GC
MS: I found it extraordinary bc she accepted that we need to investigate complaint. I spent hours on my report
BC: on a closer read - further reaction from you, you pick out passage we talked about and say the tone is concerning and is full of improper

allegations against us. You were aghast, weren't you
MS: I took issue at being accused of acting in a discriminatory way. I didn't take it well. these are serious allegations - telling us we were acting unlawfully and I was worried about this
BC: your reaction coloured

the way in which you treated ABs response
MS: I disagree - I spent so many hours. I refute it, totally untrue
EJ: we will take a break - back at 4pm

[court resumes]
BC: I appreciate you didn't deal with Cathryn McGahey (QC, Vice Chair of Bar Ethics Committee)
MS: just want to say next part of process was me writing to AB mentioning para 65
BC: thank you - that's not part of process. I want to deal with getting advice from CM.

Mr thomas said he shouldn't be one to contact Bar Council
MS: that's right
BC: why was SH the person who contacted bar council rather than you
MS: I sent email asking who was going to do this. I had to write report, had own practice, single mother. I wanted someone else to do it

BC: going to bundle p409 you say neither JK or I wanted to send info to Bar Council bc of personal info about her sexual assault. You hadn't asked her permission
MS: correct.
BC: you were getting advice on process
MS: CM went further
BC: it's likely that if you are claimant in

this into you would info to reflect what claimant was saying fully
MS: we gave a gist
BC: your email suggests what should be sent re cotton ceiling tweet
MS: she found it to be coercive
BC: turn to response to your email from SH that she won't send response

you understood that advice you were asking for was one to which ABs response was relevant
MS: yes
BC: you weren't asking for advice on approach but on substance
MS: this is a response to what Cathy was asking for

BC: you took the view that you could put out the essence of what AB said.
MS: I said don't give whole reply bc it gives whole history of sexual abuse
BC: p297 main bundle is an email - have you ever seen this
MS: don't think so
BC: let's read it. It says that there is nothing

coercive in there. You don't recall seeing this email
MS: no
BC: reading it now. The first sentence doesn't summarise ABs response - it shows SHs feeling on the work that the workshop provided. Described as coercive - rape culture. The email doesn't show ABs points about the

workshop.
BC: that is the submission based on wit state on your side
MS: I don't have a side
BC: this email doesn't include AB explanation of Cotton Ceiling
MS: says its coercive behaviour and is example of rape culture
BC: you said the response does not include passage that

phrase cotton ceiling means men wanting sex with lesbians who don't want to have sex with them
Other material she sent was the course info, electronic flyer etc from planned parenthood in that email.
MS: yes
BC: again didn't show her explanation of cotton ceiling

MS: but it was the first thing to actually show material on the workshop
BC: look at p3071 this is updated report on SW complaint on 11 Dec.
MS: you can see how late I was working
BC: At p3096 SH pressed you to make more firm finding on whether tweets breached guidance

MS: she said risk is not a finding
BC: p3111 she amends your wording 'may' to 'is likely to be found' to breach guidelines. Another amendement says 'may breach' instead of 'likely to be in breach'
MS: on advice from CM
BC: you accepted those amendments?
MS: well...she made those

suggestions in the morning and I went away and thought about them and looked at CM advice. She had summarised that tweets were in breach on BSB guidelines. I looked at that and Steph's tracks and that evening I accepted some of the amendments bc I thought she was right

BC: it is largely a cut and paste of CMs advice.
MS: I borrowed some of CMs language - I did say this
BC: understatement. This is largely a cut and paste
MS: no I intertwined CMs stuff with mine. As I said when we got her advice, this chimes with our collective gut instinct

BC: what she didn't have was details of ABs response.
MS: but I did
BC: you should have engaged with her response
MS: I did
BC: we will go into this tomorrow
EJ: we will finish for the date. Can I ask everyone if 9.30 is a problem.
BC: acceptable to me
IO: we have a difficulty

AH: I can do it
EJ: well if IO and RW have a difficulty then we will have to recommence at 10am tomorrow
[Session ends]

@threadreaderapp please unroll