Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good Afternoon. This is the afternoon session of the hearing on Wednesday 18 May 2022 in the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers. Live tweeting will resume at 2pm.

The next witness will be the Director of Human Resources and Operations at Garden Court Chambers.

EJ: Will hear from MHL
MHL: I would like to hear from affirm.
Clerk: AH wishes to speak
AH: Madam, could I speak before witness sworn in.
EJ: yes
AH: JK must give evidence tomorrow as starts murder trial. Must give ev tomorrow. Alerting tribunal.

AH: Someone has put up claim that can download w/s of RM; would like you to repeat prohibition that should not happen.
EJ: Should not be downloadable
AH: Grateful out of abundance caution, repeat
EJ: Put relevant order in chat

EJ: Can access but not download hearing bundle and can read but not download the w/s of the current witness and anyone already given ev but not those not yet called. Separately, allowing access to downloadable w/s and bundles to journalists and one or two others

If posting then somehow have copy of statement that should not have or posted when should not have.
To post would be in breach of order.

Unless anything else, proceed with MHL

BC - only just seen re JK. If must be finished tomorrow did not know before, need private case management hearing after MHL
AH - if look at timetable, MHL due to be 3 hours, mean taking this afternoon, if look at item 4 of order, 3 hours allocated to MHL then JK, Thurs 19

JK starts murder trial on Monday. I am due at funeral. Not a new issue. Existing one.
EJ: Only catching 2 words in 3.
BC: Clear not making complete, wanted to make sure understood correctly, suggest revisit after MHL
EJ: I need to understand your commitments

AH: Due to give ev tomorrow, trial on Monday, expecting to finish ev before, I will be taking her as w for GCC. If runs into Friday will need to leave at 11:30 am for funeral.
EJ: Message can't overrun, need to finish tomorrow
BC: Previously not aware prob with Friday;

My estimate always 5-6 hours, always risk of running into Friday. Always and remains my position. If need to sit later that might help. Anxious not to volunteer to submit to guillotine when v important witness.
EJ: My recollection, P cannot sit later tomorrow. Compress ev?

Concerned that SH will not be heard today and already slippage on tight timetable
AH - is BC intending to take afternoon with MHL
BC - Not all afternoon but not able to finish SH in time after MHL
AH - could start SH and bring in after JK
EJ: Possible solution to problem

[MHL affirms]
JR - will take exam in chief; pg 99, your w/s, your w/s, your signature, accurate
MHL: yes, yes
JR - four amendments you wish to make
MHL: yes
JR: 104; para21 - circulated email - would like delete staff and insert pupils

MHL: Yes
JR: "All barristers and pupils"
MHL: yes
JR; AB sent reply all; page reference
[Disruption; SH required to mute]

JR: Thank you; looking at penultimate sentence at 924, para 21;
MHL: After 915; after social media guidance
JR; Page 109; para 43; would like to add, "I sent an email to the claimant on 30 October 2019" ref to supp bundle pg 111

JR: Lastly, 114, para 67, wrong page ref; should be 129-130 of supp bundle
MHL: yes, to 136 of supp bundle

JR: Confirm content true
MHL : Yes, remain there, there will be q
BC: Good afternoon. Look at para 26 of statement at GCC bundle, final sentence give an explanation of what doing on 29 October, how to decrease social media attention on event

Look at some previous advice at pg471.
MHL: Yes
BC: Email from you in second email down and do you recall context, MOC had been targeted on social media because of her representation of a trans activist at a trial, fair summary?
MHL: Yes, junior criminal tenant targeted on social

BC: You said that not engaged before, best way forward. Suggest obvious and good advice. If wish to decrease attention don't say more about it on social media
MHL: Yes
BC: Can see in event concerned with at pg611: Email; forwarded following day
Penultimate substantive para

Cautioned against putting anything out as could be lightening rod
MHL: At time yes
BC: appreciate events moved on, decided to put out statement, look at 261

BC: There is an email commenting on two options and you say after setting out his quote - you say any tweet will generate even more responses but concerned silence more damaging, fair your objective not really to dampen attention but to address diff prob

That of reputation
MHL: Yes and no if let me elaborate. Perfectly aware woudl increase twitter traffic but ultimately dampen down
BC - pg 2061, picking up on reputational issue, not suggesting expel, but our constitution says damage to reputation can lead to expulsion.

RW: Somebody is typing, distracting
EJ: only unmuted, counsel and tribunal
SH: Not me. muted
BC: Para 15.8; follows process to expel (15.1-15.7); where decision to expel, three months notice, where grave misconduct there shall be power to chambers meeting to give less notice

BC: This is a provision for reducing notice period for really bad things
MHL: Yes but mentioning because of possibility of what happens when damage to rep
BC: Extreme provision but suggests hunting around for basis for action, fair?
MHL: not fair, not extreme, knowledge of

constitution. Addressed in our constitution as serious matter [damage to rep].
BC: Dealt with pragmatic issue of statement not dampening interest, but pg4391, second page of complaints procedure
MHL: Yes
BC: Para 12 provides for confidentiality in all aspects of procedure

MHL: yes
BC if go to 222.74; when came to what might be published re findings, clear in Nov 2019 email that is confidential internal process, accurate description?
MHL: yes
BC: Includes facts of any investigation
MHL: yes, if complaint put in confidentially but not

if put in via public sphere
BC: That is matter for complainant not chambers. Return policy at pg 4390, procedural elements. Definition of a complaint. Check we agree
Must be in writing; addressed to HOC; gives name and address;
MHL: Not exclusive, says you should

BC: anonymous complaint would not allow redress to complainant, agree
MHL: Yes
BC: Should detail complaint and what wants done
MHL: Diff to say "should" provide name and address

BC: Email from "concerned person" in Jan 2020; strongly condemn that AB still supported, some material set out, like to enquire re twitter activity of AB, so it goes on. Like to ask how uphold ideals and work alongside AB
Page 3655 to see how you thought should be dealt with

BC: You say, MS says we can ignore anonymous complaints, we agree re anonymous complaints, don't think we should encourage elaboration on statement she wants to make.

Proper that when just venting not to treat as complaint
MHL: if that is all they do, yes

BC: Page 6369; These are the versions that were circulated by Mr Menezes at 1:57pm on 24th, email at pg 620.
MHL: Just give me a moment
BC: One we looked at previously. Can see amongst the things that he attaches in the fifth para are the complaints received by clerks

BC: Only circulation of complaints from website prior to response tweets
MHL: Not it was not
BC: You may have circulated three previously, but this was circulated, Mr M duplicating.
EJ: Confused re page numbers;

BC: Page 6369; First one from "Julian", take a moment; tweets in association with LGB alliance
MHL: Tweet about LGB alliance
BC: Same vein as not saying specific complaint I would like resolved, this person is venting, general terms asking what will do
MHL: not the same,

MHL: refers launch of LGB alliance
BC: next is anonymous so shoudl not have been treated as complaint
MHL: you are quite right
BC: Next from someone called Karl; pg 6371; here only specific tweet is about LGB launch, same vein, setting out their view, venting a bit, not seeking

resolution;
MHL: don't agree at all, sent a link, sign off tweet saying look forward to hearing response
BC: Next one from Tracey; substance pg 6372; only refers to launch of LGB alliance tweet, notes that GCC claim to be part of SW Diversity Champions, not acting in accordance

Doesn't even ask for a response
MHL: no it doesn't
BC: Venting point of view
MHL: Don't agree, points to tweet, member of public, says uncomfortable, don't think just venting
BC: w/s para 25; para 105 of GCC bundle; refer to email at 1:57 of tweets directed at GCC

BC: Your understanding that this email attached all the tweets directed at GCC at that point
MHL: Can't see, see just two attached
BC: First para, first sentence, reference to them is made; Your understanding all tweets attached directed at GCC at that point?

MHL: yes
BC: MHL, put point specifically, reading your w/s and precise lang used, "see below, all tweets re EA breach"; you understood attaching all tweets at this point; or do you think only a subset
MHL; understood some of the tweets, lengthy email, can't read one sentence

BC: Interject, not saying complete picture, exploring particular aspects, has to be how this works
Have specific tweets attached
One of the reasons I have read that email as not simply limited those tweets to those that point to distinction between GCC ethos and LGB and EA,

Because tweet at top of pg does not allege those things, does not allege breach of EA or say distinction between GCC ethos and LGB alliance, nor next one down
MHL: yes, correct
BC: pg 6359 - certainly collection of tweets that use term "terf" against claimant
MHL: yes can see

BC: 6360; Somebody called DickWarlock uses the term "virulent transphobes"; when looked through; did you think some signs AB victim of abuse on twitter
MHL: Confess didn't , was away, sporadically looked, would have looked in more detail if had been at work, recall unpleasant

BC: Main message of complaints and tweets is that claim she is a transphobe for supporting launch of LGB alliance, substance of all of them
MHL: Yes
BC: After 24th look at reaction to AB's tweet generally?
MHL: Not in twitter, did not no.

BC: Did Mr Menezes say some signs victim of abuse
MHL: Did not have convo with Mr M at time; communicated by email; recall he said something like there is a lot of reaction on twitter, some supportive, some not
BC: first of his emails pg 611;

Reaction on twitter, some highly critical comments to her direction which can be viewed here, does not sound like clicked link?
MHL: I didn't
BC: did not infer highly abusive
MHL: I don't think I did, don't recall

BC: You had been copied into MB email, begins pg601-2; you presumably read that at time?
MHL: yes
BC: would have read her proposition that she was part of a trans working group, raising profile, space for clients who are trans, advising of SW; pro bono work; strong ties with

specialised sol; AB entitled to views but as chambers long history of commitment to LGB rights.

MHL: understood her to mean part of group working on these cases
BC: Mr W, appears from twitter, AB part of anti-trans LGB group, causing damage, look into urgently

BC: Did you accept LGB alliance anti-trans?
MHL: No
BC: Page 620;

BC: Fair to say reputational concern that Mr M had and focused on was a contradiction between GCC position and AB's position as associated with LGB alliance.
MHL: repeat?
BC: did you understand focusing his rep concerns on pos of chambers, ex signed up to SW, and claimants assoc

with LGB Alliance
MHL: Not that binary, he said we are taking a hammering from this community, we were caught into crossfire, email continues, says there are supportive tweets, some are not, seems to be we ended up in middle of something nothing to do with us

BC: Interesting and revealing answer, best if in crossfire to duck
MHL: didn't know how to do it
BC: But chambers decided to bump for a side
MHL: not at all, not possible, we don't have a side.

BC: Under policy - there is a decision to be taken at para 7 and 8 whether investigator required to deterimine facts
MHL: Is in policy but not how works in practice
BC: well we saw how worked in practice, open to HOC to conclude no foundation and not to instruct investigator

MHL: not that simple, diff if looking at complaints
BC: What happened at 24 October, chambers took knee jerk decision to pick a side
MHL: Not at all, we did not pick a side, absolutely we did not pick a side, not what happened. found ourselves in situation, avalanche of tweets,

Reputation being hammered. What we attempted to do, situation not found ourselves in before, tried to stem and stop in order to see what going on.
EJ: Good time for break.
BC: yes
EJ: Switch back on at 3:08pm

[court resumes]
BC: Could you look at 108 of w/s bundle; late afternoon, 25th October, messages in support of AB, pg 2525 of bundle; exchange between you and Mr M; in relation to one of emails of support, see at pg2526

BC: Mr M says do you still want added to google doc, you say, yes please we'd better, single document?
MHL: yes
BC: Am I right never sent to AB
MHL :not right, recieved in material sent in March 2020
BC: Forgive me,never sent during course of MS' s investigation nor to MS

MHL: Correct. Not sure why would be.
BC: Bottom page, para 25 of MS w/s, refers to you calling her to investigate, says on Fri 25th Oct, you say either 24th or 25th, accept MS has more precise recollection
MHL: yes, happy to accept
BC: pg 6379, main bundle;

BC: so on 28th, Monday, you say MS agreed to deal with but can't do this week; fits with previous working day of Friday when spoke to her
MHL: yes
BC: pg; 2466; on morning of 29 October, circulated complaint pol and messages received through website
MHL: Yes

BC: So far as you concerned, not discussed prior to anyone else [complaints pol]; you had not discussed how applied
MHL: No but wouldn't normally, would not discuss every time investigate
BC: 2448 - this email from MS first time raised how should be applied
MHL: correct yes

BC: SW complaint arrived on 30 OCt
MHL: No 31
BC: apologies, absolutely right, misread note
Recall tail end of thread in which whether first draft of MS adequately dealt with SW complaint
MHL: COrrect, I did not contribute

BC: Pick up; 2589; first contrib, you say can't deal with tweets unless brought to attention; MS says are in SW complaint
MHL: Yes
BC: MS says the more I read, the murkier it becomes, you say, she doesn't appear to care for consequences to chambers at all; ramped up as went along

BC: Regarded criticism of SW as problem for chambers
MHL: No, not at all, not at all, these emails, not on twitter, clicked on 2 Nov tweets, commented on language, would have said if making about anyone or anybody, took me aback

BC: don't identify lang, identify SW
MHL: No if look at 2 Nov, series of tweets,ramp up, lang is quite striking, talks about fascistic tendencies.

BC; Have put points re fascistic, to be clear don't accept characterisation
EJ: Understand
BC: About 10 days after, look at pg2909

BC: you and SL receive chaser about renewal of SW DC scheme
MHL: yes we did
BC: pg 2915, SL replies in little over 2 hours, says will be renewing, you are copied in, against background, you and SL had raised concerns over value of DC scheme

MHL: Yes, thats right
BC: turn around, no account in w/s, no disclosure of internal docs, must have had board approval
MHL: don't get board approval to renew
BC; who deals with
MHL: the people dealing with, normally renew memberships, don't need to take to board

BC - you and SL dealing with membership, SL said must have had some approval from someone else, do I understand that not right
MHL: not what he said either, me and SL two of us dealing with SW.
SH: Not his evidence
BC: Put to him that board approved and he agreed, can check notes

BC: from your recollection, who took decision in nov 2019
MHL: SL and I, we were the two people dealing, I replaced ST; I took over when returned in March that year
BC: You must have realised, close involvement, controversial decision given AB

MHL : no only controversial if SW DC membership came up; my POV as HR Director, completley unrelated to Oct 2019 events, scheme signed up to, for being inclusive as employer
BC: Draw contrast; 3309; MS final report; gives ref at para 3 to statement on GCC website on SW DC

programme, "proud...", then 2159, statement wording put to AB and agreed, part of your rep management, put up statement re LGB Alliance, about not representing views of GCC, let me understand ev; aware of statemetn
MHL: yes
BC: in circs where complaints from SW re AB

MHL: one of many
BC: you took a decision with SL to renew DC membership and maintain the positive statement about SW on GCC website
MHL: yes, biggest LGTQ organisation, not trans organisation as you make it sound, don't know why statement should not be put up

[trouble with court hearing; some struggling with tech issues]
EJ: may have to disconnect and come back in again, I have no active controls excluding

anyone.

[court resumes]
EJ: Can see MHL and BC and need to see if tribunal members back
Panel: Yes Judge

EJ: Carry on
BC: Move onto final topic, start at pg 903
One moment; a subject access request by AB which you dealt with
MHL :correct
BC: in consultation and under supervision of HOC
MHL: yes, to extent they knew what doing

BC: include SH and JK,
MHL: JK HOC and SH Diversity officer;
BC: In that SAR there was 2nd para, clear allegation, victimisation due to complaints from SW; discussed with HOC?
MHL : Imagine so
BC: Fair to say strong negative reaction from you and HOC

MHL: What mean, obviously unhappy, did not think justified
BC: can see in para 4, "note scope request" you set out GCC position that allegations are "wholly unsubstantiated and without foundation"; represents views of senior MOC, that AB taking wholly unjustified approach

MHL: Saying something that is simply not correct, we say that manifestly without foundation
BC: You took narrow view of what data needed to be searched
MHL: no, took correct view
BC: you say, not employer, say individually on ICO register, self employed. Am I right did not

search individual email of barristers
MHL: Correct
BC: not controller data for barristers in course of practice or personal comms, but under chambers constitutions, para 6.3; officers of chambers are members of board of GC Ltd; look back at 4277, para 1.6-7,

strategic management is delegated to director via GC Ltd; so insofar as officers of chambers that are members of board acting in corporate capacity, acting under GC Ltd, not individual barristers acting on own capacity, obviously wrong not to search their email accounts

MHL: No not at all.
BC: GC is data controller for members acting in corporate capacity
MHL: but not as employees
BC: dont' have to be employee
MHL: to be on board? Only data controller when process info re employees?

BC: Your are Employee of GC Ltd; so should have searched own inbox?
MHL: yes, and did
BC: in correspondence from you and MS in how to deal with complaint, none of that provided to AB
MHL: because we received legal advice, not waiving legal privilege that those exchanges protected

by legal privilege
BC: want to be clear about this, pg 2557-8; saying reason did not disclose was due to legal privilege
MHL: Mr Cooper all I can say is that all convo and email in relation to complaint advised all covered

BC: you believed to be covered by legal privilege
MHL: yes
BC: you were copied into circ of her first draft of report of MS on 4th Nov; and again that correspondence and earlier drafts of the reports not disclosed following SAR

MHL : like I said Mr Cooper, advice, email and exchanges covered by legal professional privilege
BC: in relation to this
MHL: complaints and investigation into complaints
BC: You thought any internal correspondence or earlier reports covered by legal privilege

MHL : yes
BC: suggest obviously not right
MHL: Mr Cooper you know I am not a lawyer, advice we had, legal advice we had
SH: really think this witness been up hill and down dale, has said does not want to waive privilege
BC: asking supp point

BC: this is not asking you to waive privilege, was this discussed with HOC before material disclosed
MHL: I did yes
BC: one final doc look at to see if can clear up, pg 3582;

BC: pg 3580 start; can see doc exported from numbers, converted to excel, then cuts off, a table with some anodyne text. Table with headings, posts, posts using term "TERF" table with lots of abusive tweets to AB, know provenance of doc?
MHL: no, seen now

BC: Seen in these proceedings, not something you put together, sorts of tweets at 3582, didn't click on DM's responses, didn't see
MHL: you are right
BC: Thank you. End of q

EJ: Any further OJ? AH?
JR: from me
Turn to pg4557 of bundle; this is the Sunday Times article, asked q about confidentiality provision in complaints procedure, read headline, look further down in article, see the end? four para up, AB said "no faith fair complaints process"

JR: explain what you understood to be being said about complaints process in public; just want to tell tribunal about confidentiality re article
MHL: quite astonishing, did sent a tweet out, at that time number of complaints, AB was making a statement that was already had no

faith woudl be fair complaints process and did not understand why she said that;
JR: Take to critical tweets, taken to top two, top two don't mention breaches of EA or HRA, look at 3rd one down and tell your understanding whether that tweet did
MHL: obviously refers to breach of

MHL: EA, comments on twitter didn't seem to understand obligations under EA;
JR: take to para 18 of w/s; page 103. Asked about what happening during period of Wed 23 October to 28; asked if aware AB victim of abuse, what were you doing on those two dates
MHL: on holiday with

family, periodically looking at emails,
JR: how frequently,
MHL: on 24, some hours when did not look or only look at some
JR: what was access to internet like
MHL: ok but not at work, doing on phone
JR: any other IT equipment
MHL: no
JR: page 2617

JR: asked series of q about SW; your answer concerned re language, Pg 2617, 2nd Nov, 4th tweet down; tell tribunal about what it was in tweet that you are referring to in that answer;
MHL: what i was referring to was lang; AB "fascistic tactics' to my mind quite extreme and

offensive. Found shocking to read it.
EJ: Check looking at correct tweet
JR: to be weaponised... read on;
MHL: yes
JR:turn to MS final report; pg 3309; asked q re SW DC scheme referenced in report; read para 3 on 3309 in italics; "proud to be a member of"

JR; can you tell tribunal main reason for being member of scheme
MHL: precisely what thought said to BC, in HR role, assist as employers, advise us to how to be inclusive to LGBTQ community.
JR: Response to SAR; para - we also note; taken to first 2/3rds, read last sentence

JR; explain to tribunal what position was about responding;
MHL: AB named 10-12 Members of staff, asked all to produce any doc that contained personal data, did same with mine, furnished AB with approx 1100 pages of material
JR: use word "hope" - what conveying?

MHL: hoped she would realise no grounds for victimisation.
JR: Tell tribunal on procedure for MOC providing disclosure,
MHL : did say as MOC individual data controllers, needed to send individual requests which she did
JR: did they respond

MHL :yes they did
JR: would like AH to deal with point of clarification
AH: point about SL evidence, the note we have does not accept that he sought approval; the note I have it was said that "you needed board approval; MHL copied in, neither MHL or you, mists of controversy;

SL: my convo with MHL gave me to understand that membership supported
AH: will now call JK after break

BC: have been working on basis of timetable that we had; need to refresh memory but not in headspace of JK, expecting tomorrow.
EJ: dilemma, every half hour counts, can't start early due to 1st Res childcare;
OJ: Don't need, had previous family commitment
EJ: very well

EJ: start at 9:30 tomorrow
AH: Check, that is fine
EJ: assume ok with my members; 9:30am tomorrow; start with JK evidence

@threadreaderapp unroll please