Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. Proceedings are due to resume at *9.30am* this morning, a little earlier than usual. We’ll be here as usual reporting proceedings in the service of #OpenJustice.

Evidence from Judy Khan QC (JK) will be taken today. JK was joint Head of Chambers during the events in question from 2016 until Jan 2021, then Chair of Chambers from Jan 2020 until Jan 2021. Area of practice - crime, Recorder.

There is a list of abbreviations for individuals involved in the case and previous tweet threads on our substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

We begin. EJ: Chat room not for commentary. Observers should use neutral screen names etc.
JK takes the oath
AH: Turn to 1075 in GCC wit state. [Asks for confirmation that JK signed her state and that contents true, JK confirms]
EJ: 4064 - is this the same evidence?

JK: Some things to clarify [its an earlier state]
BC: Morning Ms Khan
JK: Morning
BC: [give page ref page 490] You made this wit state 25 Jan 2021
JK: yes

BC: it was for hearing in Feb 2021 when GCC were trying to strike claims?
JK: yes
BC: in para 104 you assert claim has no prospect of success and that claim is bought for wider political dispute, claim is an abuse and vexatious. To accuse a member of the bar as abusive is very

serious?
JK: yes
BC: full disclosure had not taken place at this time?
[JK agrees]

BC: you replied to a SAR in Oct so you had searched your own emails?
JK: yes
BC: you had a duty that what you said was complete and accurate?
JK: yes, got legal advice
BC: para 101, page 4088. you say AB conduct in litigation is unreasonable and abusive. Serious to say that?

JK: yes
BC: you say you provided full disclosure where permitted to do so and had no control over redactions. you say no-one in GCC with authority is included in redactions?
JK: yes that's what I believed position to be. several iterations of papers.

BC: you were Head of Chambers at the time?
JK: yes
BC: so you had authority?
JK: yes
BC: you needed to ensure you did not mislead by omission and true state?

JK: yes
BC: 4070. Reactions to AB email of 14.12.2018. Para 27. You say you were not party to other discussions re AB on this? You assert that you weren't involved in any other exchanges?
JK: yes
BC: 1070. We can see here an email to you and other Heads. Previously this was

redacted to exclude Heads of Chambers?
JK: I haven't got material I had. I didn't do redactions.
BC: rather strange to describe as private email as you did?
[JK emotional]

EJ: would you like a break?
JK: No. At the time I made this state was shortly after my sister died at age 58. I signed the day before her funeral. Not making excuses, forgive my lack of memory
BC: Im sorry that must have been upsetting. But you were making serious allegations

JK: yes, I understand
BC: Mr Lue would have done the redactions I think. You were making a positive case that none of the redactions concealed people acting with authority at GCC ?
JK: that's obviously wrong isn't it
BC: a simple matter to have checked?
JK: would have been

BC: 1070. Here Lue says may need your support. Board approved SW association?
JK: I dont know. G Fletcher was on the board so effectively if he approved it was at board level. Dont remember it crossing my desk
BC: 558. Lue's original email announcing SW DC membership

Its clear one aspect of campaign work GCC aligned to is the strategic litigation regarding GRA?
JK: It was Fri pm. I was on a murder trial. Likely in court when I got this. Lit in relation to GRA didn't mean much to me
BC: Not long emails. AB does make clear concerned re GRA

JK: didn't know GRA term. 'Trans extremism' phrase leapt out at me.
BC: You must have understood by the time Lue's email came saying he might need help that the issue AB was concerned about was SW position on trans rights & GRA?
JK: Real life is not like this.

I got a sense of the email, wasn't printed out.
BC: You understood about SW position on trans rights?
JK: I must have done. Hard to remember exactly
BC: Once you know its about TR, mention of GRA is obviously relevant and GCC working on this litigation?

JK: real life not like that
BC: back to 1070. SL makes points about GCC and SW aligned on campaign work
JK: its clear now but I think I took that it was about assoc. with SW and them supporting intimidation and harassment
BC: 1085. your response is that GCC is not aligned to AB?

JK: no I say not representative of GCC. I understood SW was mainstream. I hadn't picked out self-ID issue. Not aware of that particularly at the time
BC: the opposition was on 'trans extremism' as she describes?
JK: didn't know what that meant at the time

BC: you say GCC will not withdraw assoc. with SW that included litigation on GRA?
JK: No collab with SW was around inclusive of LGBT rights for me not self-ID
BC: 4070. you make no ref. of your reply to SL (Mr Lue)?
JK: Agree. I am an officer of the court and part-time

judge (recorder). If I had remembered those emails they would have been in there. At the time, I had no recollection of that email exchange
BC: Would have been easy to check where SL email went?
JK: would have been
BC: you would have searched your emails to respond to SAR?

JK: yes
BC: surprising if taking due care this check not done?
JK: I cant have done that check.
BC: there are only 2 possibilities. 1. you did know and didn't refer 2. you were prepared to advance serious allegations about abusive litigation from AB without taking due care

JK: I still consider that there isn't material to support allegations being made, particularly that work was withheld
BC: that's different to saying abusive and vex. litigation
JK: yes
BC: your state said nothing concealed to support your allegation against AB, you should have

checked?
JK: I explained the circs. I cant have done
EJ: BC we understand this, shall we move on, limited time today
BC: 560 to 563. David Neale and Heads of Chambers exchange of emails. You do not refer to this in your 1st wit state?
JK: agree
BC: 562. DN refers to ABs email as

transphobic, offensive, hurtful?
JK: yes
BC:nothing in ABs email that can properly be described like this?
JK: offensive and hurtful is subjective. DN refers to family member. I didn't think that bc. I dont have anyone in my life who is trans

BC: you say to DN some members do not express who we would wish?
JK: DN has vulnerabilities. I wasn't agreeing with him, trying to reassure. you need to read in full
BC: you go on to say Chambers will continue to be trans inclusive and nothing AB says will alter that

EJ: some of this has been redacted from the public redacted, is JK aware of which bits?
BC: Im not aware madam
EJ: speak in elliptical way
JK: I will do madam. Its an issue close to DNs heart as he explains. AB did not say chambers should not be t inclusive but that was how he

read it.
BC: you go on to effectively endorse Michelle Brewer's response?
JK: I dont agree. As LT said reply all emails were really a problem. This was 19.51 on a Fri night. As I said I didn't want to encourage a debate. I didn't actually reply to AB or MB

BC: You intended MB's response to stand as the final word?
JK: I dont agree
BC: lets look at MB's response. A slap down of AB wasn't it?
JK: I dont agree. I read it as someone saying what's the evidence for this?

BC: also expressing strong support for self-ID?
JK: It is as I look at it now under the microscope. Not at the time
BC: ABs concerns were about assoc. with SW. You needed to discuss as Chambers if you were going to take her seriously?
JK: you cant run Chambers on reply all emails

AB could have emailed management committee with evidence to back-up her claims.
BC: she had raised it in an email, ball in your court?
JK: As a Head of Chambers you are a volunteer. I dont remember anyone wanting to do it. People get approached and its a duty, a labour of love.

You have to sustain your practice at the same time. You have to do better than a reply all email on a Fri night to get right response. If AB wanted discussion you would think she would have followed up. I didn't reply to MB either

JK : sorry for long answer
BC: that's ok. the problems with your answer: 1. as you told DN you were allowing MB's email to stand
JK: all I meant wasn't I didn't want to start lengthy email debate
BC: 2. SL told AB he was taking AB's concern to management

It would have been clear from your radio silence that a slap down?
JK: No. Easily get a 100 emails in one day in chambers, not real life to examine as you are now
BC: Madam is that a good time for a break?
EJ: Yes 5 mins break

BC: Another issue at around the same time, ABs concerns about Alex Sharpe's (AS) tweeting. 570. AB wrote to you on her security concerns?
JK: yes I think I checked and didn't find addresses on the intranet and got IT person to check
BC: LT prompted further exchanges. 566.

You were copied here in this email
JK: yes
BC: AB sets out quite clearly the abuse GC people get?
JK: yes
BC: then says she is stunned that a member of chambers is tweeting referring to terfs and refers you to AS's twitter?
JK: yes

BC: 573. AB says AS has deleted most recent tweets but attaches some older examples?
JK: yes. I dont remember opening the tweets. there are 3 heads. If LT picking up I might have left it. I didn't know word terf
BC: yes but AB had explained this to you already?
JK: yes

BC: Your wit state. You say no-one else has raised concerns and 'we have not seen the tweets ourselves'
JK: I hadn't looked myself, 22 Dec
BC: why say we
JK: I accept looking at that now. I still haven't clicked on the link now but happy to accept should say 'I'
AH: the email doe

link AS tweet
BC: no the email at 573 attached examples of AS's tweets.
JK: I'll take your word.
BC: in para 26 'we did not understand terminology' cant be right as AB had explained it?
JK: we didn't understand at the time it was first raised and note AB didn't want to make

formal complaint
BC: AB made clear not pursuing but that it ought to be a matter for Heads to think about how posting abuse on twitter as a member might impact on chambers?
JK: If a complaint had been made we'd look at it, she said AS would welcome a complaint...

BC: AB had put on your radar that a slur was being used by an identifiable member of chambers
JK: she did, Sat pm just before xmas, no further issue raised after that
BC: contrast position in Oct when MB and TW (Tom Wainwright) raised concerns about an AB tweet

JK: I think TW emailed us on AM 24/10 just after whole twitter storm broke. We'd had email from DdM (DM) alerting us on 23rd to storm
BC: In course of investigation in Nov 2019, AB raised again the issue of AS tweets?
JK: yes
BC: para 44, 771 AB again raised AS has used terf

She notes AS has not been subjected to same process. Ought to have been a matter of concern to chambers?
JK: If AS twitter had resulted in a media twitter storm then I would have expected us to engage in the same process. I felt Chambers was in a parlous position lots on our

plate
BC: 794. [BC reads out] Doesn't say views her own. So DM is aware tweeting without 'own views'.
JK: Im not copied in.
BC: no indication anyone does anything in relation to AS?
JK: yes but no media frenzy and no complaint. 2/11 AB was tweeting about SW fascistic tactics

but no complaint about that so we didn't do anything
BC: you tell us you barely use twitter?
JK: I have account just to open things that are sent
BC: on 2 occasions AB raised concerns about AS tweeting abusively as a member of chambers

JK: If AB had complained we would have dealt with it
BC: I suggest the contrast is striking, action taken against AB very swiftly and in a knee-jerk way with nothing done about AS
JK: Ive explained why.

BC: When you put that contrast with your responses to 14.12.2018 email it does reflect alignment of GCC with SW TRA position?
JK: No. Radio silence isn't that a line has been adopted. People are doing their own thing and moving on. Brutal at criminal bar
BC: By Dec 2018 you knew

GCC pursing bus. development work on campaigning agenda?
JK: Never been to any TR events.
BC: you were aware of TRWG?
JK: yes but don't remember much, not my interest

Doing it as members of chamber not as all of chambers.
BC: You knew bus. development work was on TR campaigning site of debate?
JK: I didn't know, not involved
BC: you are now aware that people who shared AB's GC views were scared of expressing those views?

1074. Email from M Russell in Dec 2018 to AB and SL. She thinks linking with LGBT rights is important but that she too is concerned about TRAs. She says does not want to take public part because of toxicity. So members concerned about speaking out.
AH: put the point

BC: GC person scared?
JK: No, she doesn't want to get involved in lengthy email debate. I know MR, she's not scared. I have views on this too. No-one has ever asked me.
BC: one moment pls [BC searching for ref]

BC: No Im taking instructions, can I ask for 5 mins?
EJ: OK. Return at 11.18

BC: 1074. You say MR not scared. MR says 'I have seen women who worked all their lives as feminists trashed and vilified' then 'please make sure.... AB is listened to... ' then concludes poisonous debate so doesn't want to take part. Plainly concerned
JK: You said MR too scared

I dont accept.
BC: In chambers v public and vociferous TRWG that promoted itself?
JK: There are lots of events and interest groups
AH: public and promoted to whom?
BC: on twitter and in chambers

You can't point me to any public comm from GCC which acknowledges legitimacy of GC views?
JK: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
BC: Quite clear to you that alignment of GCC was with TRA cause?
JK: Im on crime team. Not an issue on our team really.

BC: of a piece with SW assoc and treatment of AB?
JK: No I didn't see SW assoc as same as self ID
BC: you are good friends with Colin Cook (clerk)
JK: yes
BC: would have discussed disapproval of AB with CC?
JK: Loaded question. Implies I did disapprove.

I was not interest in this topic , focussed on my practice
BC: you made clear to CC AB was out of favour?
JK: utter rubbish and deeply offensive. grotesquely unfair [JK sounds emotional &speaks about where she has come from and what she has overcome as a black woman]

I care about race and sex. Ive done nothing but support AB.
BC: WTF report. 5948. Influence of clerks. 5959. Para 28c). [reads] impact of who clerks socialise with affects clerking

JK: its about females, lads culture
BC: it disadvantages women as men socialise with other men?
JK: appears to be getting at that
BC: shows broader way clerking is impacted by relationships

JK: I consider clerks to be fair in my experience
BC: you are powerful in chambers?
JK: I dont consider myself powerful like that. chambers tries to do best for chambers, not pandering
BC: CC got the message AB was out of favour by 2019?
JK : rubbish.

BC: 4390 complaints procedure. complaint must be in writing?
JK: I dont see must
BC: it defines it as so?
JK: I'll accept
BC: purpose is to facilitate resolution of complaints?
JK:yes

BC: cant resolve anon complaints?
JK: yes
BC: not just to vent? Needs to be something can be resolved?
JK:yes

BC: para 8, discretion for Heads to appoint investigator to determine facts?
JK: yes
BC: Prelim decision needed at that point about whether an investigation needed?
JK: No. MHL would choose a Head to deal with a complaint back then. You would look at paperwork, never had

a complaint where just read and not done anything.
BC: 2753. Transparency
JK: I refer to giving AB detail came from SW
BC: Had been a suggestion not to tell AB came from SW?
JK: Not a serious suggestion I dont think

BC: you would agree barrister needs to be given relevant information and correspondence?
JK: yes or the subject matter
BC: and what process is being followed?
JK: yes
BC: 4391 para 12. Confidentiality provision for all elements?
JK: to whom?

BC: to complainant and to the member
JK: you might redact complainant sometimes
BC: publicly stating a member is under investigation is inconsistent with this policy?
JK : yes

BC: page 101 of core pleadings, para 93. says people who made complaint should be reassured being dealt with. Not right that the complaints you were investigating were the tweets to which the responses were sent?

JK: No investigating email complaints. One might have been a tweet.
EJ: Where are we?
JK: para 93
BC: 618. Tweet with a screenshot of a complaint. From 'carl[?]. One of the tweets a reply was sent to. So one tweet overlapped with emails. But not right that you were reassuring

complainants?
JK: You mean tweet complainants?
BC: It must be right that by sending out tweets to a number of people only one of whom had made a complaint that you were not reassuring 'complainants'?
JK: tweets were to limit rep damage. think I agree with you.

BC: I will use 'complaint' to mean the ones you were investigating and 'tweet' to refer to the tweeted concerns, if you do the same please
JK: ok
BC: 612. You did see text of response?
JK: yes
BC: and you were told response would go to tweets?
JK: yes

BC: the text of the response .. would you agree that it would imply the investigation relates to the concerns in the tweets [rather than complaints]?
JK: I dont know if I thought that at the time
BC: its obvious. twitter storm.
JK: some may read that way but not clear in my view

doesn't say 'your concern' think it means concerns in wider sense
BC: look through tweets. Refers to LGBA as phobic exercise, anti-trans, 615... 616... 'did you know you are an SW champion'.. . 'violation of HR'.. 617... 'virulent transphobia' ... 2145... 'discrimination against

T people'. Its clear LGBA is not t phobic?
JK :correct
BC: but GCC sends message taking transphobia accusation very seriously?
JK: DM explained to us our rep was taking a hammering on twitter

The response was based on what we understood people were saying about GCC ie GCC in breach of Eq law.
BC: Heads were taking the decision to send the response tweet? Incumbent on you to be clear on what you were saying?
JK: I took DMs word as to what was happening on twitter.

2 other crises going on. Software crisis.
BC: You personally had not read any of the tweets in question when you sanctioned the response being sent?
JK: I had read the LGBA launch tweet. Not sure re her wider tweeting.
BC: And the tweets responded to had you read those?

JK: think I relied on DM
BC: no investigation underway when response tweets sent?
JK: there was in sense that MHL had sent emails etc on this. part of the process is receiving the material

BC: In reality you sent response tweets because inclined to give credence to idea AB was phobic?
JK: no
BC: you wanted to distance yourselves from AB?
JK: dont agree

You saw DM said in an email he had not seen anything like it in terms of twitter storm. Addressing rep damage.
BC: the way you responded was to appease the accusers of AB?
JK: dont agree
BC: were you under pressure from TRWG?

JK: Absolutely not.
BC: you had been copied to MB email page 601. MB spells out GCC is committed to work of TRWG.
JK: I dont see her talking about self ID or GC beliefs? Context. Crisis at chambers. Director had resigned
AH: What is being put re pressure?

EJ: I think BC is making sure JK understands context?
BC: yes. 599. TW says it appears AB is part of anti-trans group and causing damage. It was clear LGBA was not anti-trans?
JK :agree. In fairness use of words trans extremism concerning

When TW sends this email, we are by then aware of DMs concerns
BC: 597. You respond to TW , MB and other Heads. You say 'we will speak to her'. Contrasts with what was done re AS.
JK: Ive answered already. We initially ignored MB until we knew about DM concerns and twitter storm

BC: You say not looked at all tweets, therefore you had looked at some?
JK: yes I know I looked at the LGBA launch tweet and must have looked at more than one
BC: Did you look at replies to AB tweet?
JK: no

BC: so your position is that difference is the twitter storm but you had not looked at the twitter storm?
JK: yes context of other goings on in chambers. Glen has resigned, IT issues etc
BC: if you click on a tweet the replies show up below?
JK: I think that's right

BC: 611. if you click on link now it still takes you to tweet and replies show below albeit will be some newer replies. you would have seen nature of replies at time though wouldn't you?
JK: cant recall looking at replies. difficult time at chambers

EJ: BC I think we've got the point. Short break?
BC: yes
EJ: back in 5

BC: page 3582. document here. have you seen it before? disclosed by GCC
JK: Didn't see at the time, have now
BC: do you know who created it or why?
JK: no
BC: contains 'fuck the fuck .. fucking terfy terfs fuck'

'terfs can f right off' and so it goes on. you can see frequent use of abusive language?
JK: totally
BC: DM email at 611. If you clicked on that link on 23.10.2019 you cannot possibly have failed to see the abuse AB was getting?
JK: yes but dont know that I did or when

I was obv. not aware at the time of the abuse.
BC: I put you had seen abuse
JK: I dont know, I dont really use twitter if I knew about replies like that I would have said at the time
AH: I think she's been clear on this
BC: I was moving on.

621. lots of tenants say they are at GCC on their twitter. You have agreed launch tweet is not transphobic
JK: yes but its provocative
BC: 695. talk that AB is exercising free speech. this is right isn't it? chambers doesn't restrict provocative speech?
JK: well case of Mr X.

He took down even though free speech
BC: Chambers does not restrict provocative speech does it?
JK: no but should notify Heads if really going to be provocative
BC: it was quite clear that GCC has never expected members to notify heads before being provocative?

JK: We dont have diktat saying that you are right but do need to consider Mr X
BC: have you seen AB evidence that AB sent the tweet on spur of the moment and she didn't know outcome of doing that in advance. Unjustified to criticise AB for not notifying?

JK: She would have known soon after, by 23rd that there was a storm but only DM told us
BC: I suggest your answers are revealing. You don't put yourself in AB shoes at any point. Imagine receiving that abuse
JK: With respect its not revealing. Im answering questions put. I would

have been horrified
BC: Your attitude is AB bought on herself
JK: No I dont accept that.
BC: underlying antipathy to AB
JK: Many examples show quite the opposite. I would like to give these
BC: AH can ask for those if he thinks needed

Page 4077. Your first wit state. You make no ref to MB email of 16 Oct at all?
JK: No
BC: Had been disclosed but with redactions. Another one you ought to have known about and made reference to?
JK: I accept that

BC: TW email disclosed without recipient visible. Your reply hadn't been disclosed and you make no ref to it
JK: Obv not in front of me when I made the state.
BC: clear you have omitted material that infers alignment with TRWG?
JK: dont consider TRWG particularly influential

BC: Back to 611. 23 Oct, DM sets out info on tweets?
JK: yes
BC: says number of highly critical comments, did you click on that link?
JK: dont recall
BC: he says there are also responses supportive of AB and his figures suggest overall people are supportive of AB?

JK: yes I think DM also said next day that 100s of concerns I think. I think DM was saying might die down
BC: 3rd para. DM mentions contradiction between human rights ethos and AB's views?
JK: yes
BC: he then refers to GCC rep campaigning on LGBT rights and trans issues

JK: I don't think he is saying chambers as a whole
BC: [reads out]
JK: I didn't have this down as chambers having a position on self-ID
BC: my point is rep issue relates to ABs views?
JK: no he is referring to what tweets say

BC: Im not saying DM agrees with labelling of AB but that people saying that impacts chambers?
JK: its people saying GCC is breaching Eq law
EJ: I think we've got this message. Time for a break?
BC: yes
EJ: resume at 2pm