Summary of today's 19 May 2022 live-tweeting from the tribunal of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers. Links to this week's live-tweeting. Resumes tomorrow at 9:30 am.
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…
We begin.
The clerk makes sure tech is working and runs through basic ground rules of connection, asks remain muted, use chatroom function in line with judge. Reminded not to record hearing in any way. Public should not cause distractions
The clerk makes sure tech is working and runs through basic ground rules of connection, asks remain muted, use chatroom function in line with judge. Reminded not to record hearing in any way. Public should not cause distractions
EJ: good morning, we will start with concluding evidence of JK and move on to hear from 3 clerks. Before we start we recieved updated supplementary bundle from Respondent 1. On bundles, I was sent an email come from GC saying we should be using 22nd April bundle and I said we are
EJ: we still have current difficulty as has electronically 6041 pages and if there are more then there's been a breakdown. To the observers, the chatroom just for tech problems. Comments and requests should be made to clerk.
EJ: I urge observers to use neutral names but don't use something which is harassment of witness or representative or well disconnect you. Any further housekeeping?
[None]
[None]
JK: good morning
EH: BC resume please
BC: page 657. DM's response. "They have helped calm Situ amongst those mobilised against GC'. I suggest what's telling is...First, he is recognising that what u were responding to was a mobilisation by ppl who thought AB was transphobic
EH: BC resume please
BC: page 657. DM's response. "They have helped calm Situ amongst those mobilised against GC'. I suggest what's telling is...First, he is recognising that what u were responding to was a mobilisation by ppl who thought AB was transphobic
JK: you'll have to ask him
BC: did you not understand it was a mobilisation?
JK: yeh I mean I think that's right...fair to say
BC: tweets were to calm those ppl down?
JK: not right to say..I think David was...obviously ask him...
BC: did you not understand it was a mobilisation?
JK: yeh I mean I think that's right...fair to say
BC: tweets were to calm those ppl down?
JK: not right to say..I think David was...obviously ask him...
JK: what I...obviously...he's concerned ppl are mobilising against GC and taking wha5 AB was saying as rep of GCC...obviously ask him
BC: 2nd point..."if we delete will provoke twitter storm" quite clear these response tweets had wide circulation and deletion widely marked?
BC: 2nd point..."if we delete will provoke twitter storm" quite clear these response tweets had wide circulation and deletion widely marked?
JK: just saying intended...not a twitter user...ask David...but not intended to be...to go viral...certainly not intention of heads
BC: went through comms yesterday which was clear advice
JK: you need to look at actual wording which noone wants to do. Fair to say it would go
BC: went through comms yesterday which was clear advice
JK: you need to look at actual wording which noone wants to do. Fair to say it would go
beyond a few people, no intention to go viral
BC: if attention was to address rep damage, what good would a msg that only goes to 7 ppl be?
JK: 7 ppl who raised specific query and that's what DM did. Deal with him.
BC: you're su
JK: PLEASE let me finish
BC: if attention was to address rep damage, what good would a msg that only goes to 7 ppl be?
JK: 7 ppl who raised specific query and that's what DM did. Deal with him.
BC: you're su
JK: PLEASE let me finish
AH: let her...
EJ: if more than one ppl speak I can't hear. Exercise restraints. Finish JK
JK: best dealt with by DM where he deals with possible options
BC: I will...but YOUR intention
JK: I dealt with that
BC: the explanation u seek to give was to address rep harm?
JK: yes
EJ: if more than one ppl speak I can't hear. Exercise restraints. Finish JK
JK: best dealt with by DM where he deals with possible options
BC: I will...but YOUR intention
JK: I dealt with that
BC: the explanation u seek to give was to address rep harm?
JK: yes
BC: 7 ppl didn't all have concerns
JK: yes
BC: So what good would it do
JK: took advice from marketing manager
BC: you intended to be widely circulated to address harsh
JK: not right, DM is one who knows how twitter is used we could have put response on the website but didnt
JK: yes
BC: So what good would it do
JK: took advice from marketing manager
BC: you intended to be widely circulated to address harsh
JK: not right, DM is one who knows how twitter is used we could have put response on the website but didnt
BC: all right 2164 please
BC: looked at email to AB who replied "destroy my career and character, u offered no support" [reads] the tone reflects level of upset if AB
JK: she was angry I agree
BC: reflects u still hadn't offered support
JK: nevermind what that says...
BC: looked at email to AB who replied "destroy my career and character, u offered no support" [reads] the tone reflects level of upset if AB
JK: she was angry I agree
BC: reflects u still hadn't offered support
JK: nevermind what that says...
JK: best response at 1.30 in the morning
BC: AB is right uve not offered support
JK: I think I said in response I didn't know about threats. Might have said in re to this but point there...u have to appreciate that I didn't know about threats. AB didn't tell us. At 5am AM was
BC: AB is right uve not offered support
JK: I think I said in response I didn't know about threats. Might have said in re to this but point there...u have to appreciate that I didn't know about threats. AB didn't tell us. At 5am AM was
Tweeting about gender neutral toilets...she didn't say at any point she'd received threats...I don't know what is said but I would have left voicemail saying call me back. Ur making criticisms but can only know when u know whats going on
BC: she told u and u said u didn't know
BC: she told u and u said u didn't know
JK: I'm sure I would have said report to the police as I said yesterday
BC: trying to find your response
JK: end of bundle but not included and we put in at end
AH: 6402
JK: 1.38 in morning
BC: "noone trying to smear ur character..u have decided to adopt position..no approval"
BC: trying to find your response
JK: end of bundle but not included and we put in at end
AH: 6402
JK: 1.38 in morning
BC: "noone trying to smear ur character..u have decided to adopt position..no approval"
BC: [reads] won't read out for time
JK: I'd like u to read it
BC: if I have to we won't get finished today
AH: did for claimant could do the courtesy for JK
BC: [reads small parts]
JK: I'd like u to read it
BC: if I have to we won't get finished today
AH: did for claimant could do the courtesy for JK
BC: [reads small parts]
BC: So ur principle msg to AB about her upset was "you've brought this on yourself" wasn't it
JK: that's why I asked u to read full email. Having worked for 2 weeks and landed with this issue...my point is u must have known it was going to happen...don't think big ask to warn us
JK: that's why I asked u to read full email. Having worked for 2 weeks and landed with this issue...my point is u must have known it was going to happen...don't think big ask to warn us
JK: pick up phone. If she'd pick up phone and said about threats I would not as HOC say nevermind you...I'd say come in and let's work through this. I took my responsibility seriously for staff and tenants I feel responsible including AB
BC: you said if she rang you...but she had then told you she was receiving death threats...but your response was NOT to say come in and talk about it. U blamed her
JK: context is everything
AH: not fair reading of email
JK: u have to read this and what I said to other Heads
JK: context is everything
AH: not fair reading of email
JK: u have to read this and what I said to other Heads
JK: I send an email and tried to summarise and was in that email I'm pretty sure she said she's going to sue us for defamation. We've now a whole PR disaster and now threatened with sue...u have to forgive me at 1.38 in morning...that's why I say I'm sorry but that's the context
EJ: I think we have that now
BC: page 654
JK: should just say in terms of this characterisation of me developed in these eproceedings I think important to see what I said to Peter wilcock...I'll go if u allow me
BC: this isn't an opportunity to say what you'd like to say
BC: page 654
JK: should just say in terms of this characterisation of me developed in these eproceedings I think important to see what I said to Peter wilcock...I'll go if u allow me
BC: this isn't an opportunity to say what you'd like to say
JK: I can offer rebuttal
BC: you know how this works..AH can take u to Qs arising
JK: not everything is in WS
BC: it ought to be
EJ: it may not be in WS but was opp to be in supplementary bundle
BC: email from DM here
BC: you know how this works..AH can take u to Qs arising
JK: not everything is in WS
BC: it ought to be
EJ: it may not be in WS but was opp to be in supplementary bundle
BC: email from DM here
BC: he's drawing ur attention to amnesty and SW, who work closely with, SW was a factor is decisions being taken
[Drilling going on in background]
[Drilling going on in background]
JK: can that noisse be heard? Can the source be found..can GCC make enquires to make it stop. [Drilling goes on]
BC: DM indicates SW was relevant factor in decision making
Jk: not for me
BC: DM indicates SW was relevant factor in decision making
Jk: not for me
BC: no letters say they'd been asked to send?
JK: no
BC: page 682. U take up same theme [reads] couple of points.
RW: when drilling occurs we lose ur sound BC
JK: no
BC: page 682. U take up same theme [reads] couple of points.
RW: when drilling occurs we lose ur sound BC
JK: can u ask urgently to stop
EJ: u can tell to resume in half hour
MHL has said she's sorted
JK: I could move rooms if can't stop. Hope they can
EJ: let's try
EJ: u can tell to resume in half hour
MHL has said she's sorted
JK: I could move rooms if can't stop. Hope they can
EJ: let's try
BC: not keen on carrying on and can see AB is keen...
EJ: JK can mute when BC asks and we'll cross fingers.. let's try
BC: just read out 682. You were receding emails of support for AB?
Jk: yes and GC too
EJ: JK can mute when BC asks and we'll cross fingers.. let's try
BC: just read out 682. You were receding emails of support for AB?
Jk: yes and GC too
BC: u inferred they were solicited by claimant
JK: I did...somebody said email had been given out ob twitter and I inferred AB had. Inferred because wasn't chair of Chambers, was joint, would be Lesleys email...AB had been on touch with me not others that's she was speaking to
JK: I did...somebody said email had been given out ob twitter and I inferred AB had. Inferred because wasn't chair of Chambers, was joint, would be Lesleys email...AB had been on touch with me not others that's she was speaking to
AB: journalists...her focus was on me so that's why I said that
BC: just see if drilling has stopped...give it a min...can't have it going through ur answers. Give 30 secs
JK: should carry on.
BC: take 5 mins please
EJ: seems to have stopped
BC: just see if drilling has stopped...give it a min...can't have it going through ur answers. Give 30 secs
JK: should carry on.
BC: take 5 mins please
EJ: seems to have stopped
BC: contrast I'd draw is that AB is soliciting letters of support and complete absence if consideration the complaint against her were targeted campaign
JK: in fairness what I'm saying there.. I think she'd given email out to supporters.. could have been she directed them to me.
JK: in fairness what I'm saying there.. I think she'd given email out to supporters.. could have been she directed them to me.
BC: no basis to think this? Fact she may have given it to orgs and journo does not suggest that
AH: objection. No suggestion by JK AB published, that it was sent, also not soliciting but sent
BC: page 212
JK: looks like AB sent out details
AH: objection. No suggestion by JK AB published, that it was sent, also not soliciting but sent
BC: page 212
JK: looks like AB sent out details
JK: not on twitter and took at face value
BC: page 242 [reads email "supporters email me directly" u were drawing inference AB handing out ur email address?
JK: 3.05 in morn plsnote. I do not think unreasonable inference to be AB. why would anyone choose only me not all heads?
BC: page 242 [reads email "supporters email me directly" u were drawing inference AB handing out ur email address?
JK: 3.05 in morn plsnote. I do not think unreasonable inference to be AB. why would anyone choose only me not all heads?
JK: clearly my name had been given because journalists wanted to speak to me
(Discrepency about chronology)
BC: in what format someone said that?
JK: can't remember...somebody said ...obvs wasn't just saying AB had given it out...either way...erm...sorry
(Discrepency about chronology)
BC: in what format someone said that?
JK: can't remember...somebody said ...obvs wasn't just saying AB had given it out...either way...erm...sorry
BC: when u say someone?
JK: internal to Chambers
BC: what context?
JK: can't remember
AH: page 212
EJ: have u finished BC?
BC: there's easy way to work out emails at GCC
JK: wouldn't choose mine. DM says [reads about AB sending our details]
JK: internal to Chambers
BC: what context?
JK: can't remember
AH: page 212
EJ: have u finished BC?
BC: there's easy way to work out emails at GCC
JK: wouldn't choose mine. DM says [reads about AB sending our details]
BC: clear DMs part there's an inference
JK: yes
BC: is this the occasion someone told you?
JK: I don't believe it is. Incomplete memory as 2 and a half years ago.
BC: page 195
JK: yes
BC: is this the occasion someone told you?
JK: I don't believe it is. Incomplete memory as 2 and a half years ago.
BC: page 195
BC: you say you discovered AB gave our address?
(Missed)
JK: I remember thinking odd to focus on head female
BC: 2214
JK: sorry can...I say here 'at some point'
BC: not my Q
(Missed)
JK: I remember thinking odd to focus on head female
BC: 2214
JK: sorry can...I say here 'at some point'
BC: not my Q
BC: "AB has clearly given out my email"
JK: I thought she had o something I was told but can't remember who or when...but must be right my email was given for all reasons said
BC: do u maintain that's what happened?
JK: yes.. I'm not saying she said can you support me...and
JK: I thought she had o something I was told but can't remember who or when...but must be right my email was given for all reasons said
BC: do u maintain that's what happened?
JK: yes.. I'm not saying she said can you support me...and
gave my details
BC: and u base that on what you can't remember ...and AB has said she has NOT given your email
JK: yes
BC: u think she's lying
JK: can u repeat..I'm saying that's the inference and that I was told.
BC: AB makes clear she did not. U don't accept?
JK: can't gainsay
BC: and u base that on what you can't remember ...and AB has said she has NOT given your email
JK: yes
BC: u think she's lying
JK: can u repeat..I'm saying that's the inference and that I was told.
BC: AB makes clear she did not. U don't accept?
JK: can't gainsay
BC: letters if support suggest u were predisposed to be dismissive as solicited by AB
JK: not fair as some came through website...didn't say she was soliciting as in write these particularly things...she had support, we knew that and took into account.
BC: page 750
JK: not fair as some came through website...didn't say she was soliciting as in write these particularly things...she had support, we knew that and took into account.
BC: page 750
BC: letters of support made clear not solicited
JK: yes
BC: a msg from Lou Chris field "apparant she's instructed barristers at GCC" and you understood she was client who was important
JK: yes
BC: page 748
JK: doesn't appear to ref tweet but clearly supporting
JK: yes
BC: a msg from Lou Chris field "apparant she's instructed barristers at GCC" and you understood she was client who was important
JK: yes
BC: page 748
JK: doesn't appear to ref tweet but clearly supporting
BC: MS say [reads]
JK: have to ask maya
BC: you are in the chain. Its a dismissive statement by MS
JK: yeh fair to say...she says she's expressing inaccurate views...that's why I say I do think.. ur right MW says we should write to her
BC: u agree with all of that and endorsing
JK: have to ask maya
BC: you are in the chain. Its a dismissive statement by MS
JK: yeh fair to say...she says she's expressing inaccurate views...that's why I say I do think.. ur right MW says we should write to her
BC: u agree with all of that and endorsing
Dismissive attitude
JK: when u say agree with all that...MW says [reads] i reply to MW I agree with all that. Unfair I'm agreeing to all, just agreeing with Mark
BC: [reads email from GCC client in support of AB] so she is setting out clearly she has seen hounding of AB yes?
JK: when u say agree with all that...MW says [reads] i reply to MW I agree with all that. Unfair I'm agreeing to all, just agreeing with Mark
BC: [reads email from GCC client in support of AB] so she is setting out clearly she has seen hounding of AB yes?
JK: what she says is horrified to read in press, obvs case we now know but didn't. Online article incorrectly stated as email that AB is being investigated for expressing views... AB wasn't being ...the tweets were...wasn't investigating for setting out views.. tweets provicative
And against BSB
BC: u have someone who is instructive in Chambers setting out why AB views not controversial and shared by many
JK: long Q and lost u
BC: this was relevant
JK: I couldn't disagree more strongly...
BC: u have someone who is instructive in Chambers setting out why AB views not controversial and shared by many
JK: long Q and lost u
BC: this was relevant
JK: I couldn't disagree more strongly...
JK: bit like saying to a jury...just like saying to KM about distancing....absolutely NO favour...not here to pander to external viewpoint
EJ: concerned about time...going 55 mins and a lot more to cover...have to stop lengthy explanation of points but short Qs ..purely to finish
EJ: concerned about time...going 55 mins and a lot more to cover...have to stop lengthy explanation of points but short Qs ..purely to finish
BC: her answers have tended to stray from Qs I ask and that's taking long time
EJ: tribunal can draw conclusions to your clear questions
BC: 697
AH: real difficulties. Have to leave for a funeral and only 20 mins of reexamination
EJ: tribunal can draw conclusions to your clear questions
BC: 697
AH: real difficulties. Have to leave for a funeral and only 20 mins of reexamination
BC: another email expressly setting out amongst other things her understanding of cotton ceiling and implications for lesbians. It's relevant to consideration of ABs tweets on cotton ceiling
JK: nothing in here that u didn't explore at great length with MS
BC: 2209 please
JK: nothing in here that u didn't explore at great length with MS
BC: 2209 please
BC: an email on behalf of Women's Voices Matter (WVM) did u see?
JK: can't remember
BC: would be relevant to ABs tweet of pattern of abuse of SWs agenda of misogynist abuse
JK: doesn't refer to SW
BC: it's pattern of behaviour
JK: can't remember
BC: would be relevant to ABs tweet of pattern of abuse of SWs agenda of misogynist abuse
JK: doesn't refer to SW
BC: it's pattern of behaviour
IO: no ref of SW in doc
BC: referring to ABs tweet.. talking about relevant ro investigation and nature of abuse
EJ: u asked and JK doesn't remember
BC: 938...again highly relevant material to send to AB and as MS as investigator?
JK: don't know if MS had this, may have had this
BC: referring to ABs tweet.. talking about relevant ro investigation and nature of abuse
EJ: u asked and JK doesn't remember
BC: 938...again highly relevant material to send to AB and as MS as investigator?
JK: don't know if MS had this, may have had this
JK: someone commenting on press
EJ: 5 min break.. review Qs BC to see if u can focus
EJ: 5 min break.. review Qs BC to see if u can focus
We are back.
[EJ making sure all relevant ppl unmuted and all accounted for]
EJ: let's resume. Mercifully drilling has stopped. BC carry on.
bC: page 661. AB sent email reiterating u were discriminatory. Proposing compromise [reads] so she was proposing solution yes?
[EJ making sure all relevant ppl unmuted and all accounted for]
EJ: let's resume. Mercifully drilling has stopped. BC carry on.
bC: page 661. AB sent email reiterating u were discriminatory. Proposing compromise [reads] so she was proposing solution yes?
HK: potentially
BC: and u didn't take her up onitsha
JK: she wasn't saying about not sueing
BC: read end of sentence
JK: have to view in that context
BC: proposing how to move forward once tweets down?
JK: yes
BC: and u didn't take her up onitsha
JK: she wasn't saying about not sueing
BC: read end of sentence
JK: have to view in that context
BC: proposing how to move forward once tweets down?
JK: yes
BC: exchange between u and SH
JK: yes
BC: SH says not investigating formal complaint. Must have been comms before this mustn't there?
JK: yes but not sure which...
BC: just about...do u agree must have been comms to SH about MS involvement
JK: yes
JK: yes
BC: SH says not investigating formal complaint. Must have been comms before this mustn't there?
JK: yes but not sure which...
BC: just about...do u agree must have been comms to SH about MS involvement
JK: yes
BC: 2426. This is before board of management meeting. Copying in SH and (missed)...fair to infer during prev week SH had provided support and assistance
JK: you'll know there disclosure from Henry and I'd called him up. Short answer don't know when comms with Steph but must have spoke to her before this email
BC: 2425. Then email from u, in which ur disinclined to say anything else publically and say [of LGB and reads]
BC: 2425. Then email from u, in which ur disinclined to say anything else publically and say [of LGB and reads]
BC: u were clear no complaints to be upheld?
JK: don't agree at all...talking about what LGB wanted.. can I just say it was never on our radar to do anything to SB like expel her...I don't know...didn't think we reached a solution because we hadn't
EJ: can u conclude by 11am
JK: don't agree at all...talking about what LGB wanted.. can I just say it was never on our radar to do anything to SB like expel her...I don't know...didn't think we reached a solution because we hadn't
EJ: can u conclude by 11am
BC: will try. 2460 is the mins of board of management meeting. In your first WS, the relevant mins confirmed MS will carry out investigation but didn't?
JK: I don't know why I say that
BC: what the mins actually say JK confirmed SB was NOT being investigated
JK: I don't know why I say that
BC: what the mins actually say JK confirmed SB was NOT being investigated
BC: you hadn't decided dwhwthwr to investigate
JK: absolute nonsense...what I said in meeting ...was day after Sunday Times...AB not investigated...I never approved mins.
BC: in re to being supportive to AB, came from Miss Wibberley, women's officer.
JK: absolute nonsense...what I said in meeting ...was day after Sunday Times...AB not investigated...I never approved mins.
BC: in re to being supportive to AB, came from Miss Wibberley, women's officer.
JK: yes
BC: LW felt it was good idea to offer AB olive branch.
JK: doesn't mean only LW thought it.
BC: can see 2391, a msg exchange between Claire wade and LW, prior to meeting, that miss wade agrees AB must be supported initiative came from women's officers?
JK: they raised it
BC: LW felt it was good idea to offer AB olive branch.
JK: doesn't mean only LW thought it.
BC: can see 2391, a msg exchange between Claire wade and LW, prior to meeting, that miss wade agrees AB must be supported initiative came from women's officers?
JK: they raised it
JK: don't agree noone else thought it
BC: recorded in mins that either women's officer could offer but shouldn't be mandated by board. NOT carried out by board, but women's officer
JK: AB had been really angry and arguing and threatening to sue. Didn't feel she was receptive
BC: recorded in mins that either women's officer could offer but shouldn't be mandated by board. NOT carried out by board, but women's officer
JK: AB had been really angry and arguing and threatening to sue. Didn't feel she was receptive
To olive branches
EJ: must finish
BC: 242, email from u to DM, ["u tweeted our response"] I am right that still at this point u hadn't considered material to take it forward
JK: responded already...this was complex. Yes maya was appointed and going to an investigation
EJ: must finish
BC: 242, email from u to DM, ["u tweeted our response"] I am right that still at this point u hadn't considered material to take it forward
JK: responded already...this was complex. Yes maya was appointed and going to an investigation
[Hammering noise]
BC: is that coming from u?
Jk: afraid it is
BC: ill try to persevere and understand time pressure but needs to head
EJ: finish by 11.10
BC: no guillotining of any other witness. V. Important GCC witness. Take out interruptions I'm on track
BC: is that coming from u?
Jk: afraid it is
BC: ill try to persevere and understand time pressure but needs to head
EJ: finish by 11.10
BC: no guillotining of any other witness. V. Important GCC witness. Take out interruptions I'm on track
EJ: we sat earlier and SH has always made it clear he needs to get away. You've asked qs where 2 would have been done.
BC: very well. In ur first WS, u said in essence MS reached conclusions independently?
JK: yes
BC: very well. In ur first WS, u said in essence MS reached conclusions independently?
JK: yes
BC: u were xopied into comms and made no ref to that in WS?
JK: yes MS already dealt with it. She will deal with.
BC: didn't ask u to deal with substance. U can see potential significance?
JK: yeah..thing about...MS is fiercely independent minded
JK: yes MS already dealt with it. She will deal with.
BC: didn't ask u to deal with substance. U can see potential significance?
JK: yeah..thing about...MS is fiercely independent minded
JK: considered to be MS work
BC: AB gave responses to allegations on 7692...she made within it a number of allegations against DW and GCC
JK: yes
BC: were u outraged by those allegations
JK: can't remember...was really con earned about them
BC: AB gave responses to allegations on 7692...she made within it a number of allegations against DW and GCC
JK: yes
BC: were u outraged by those allegations
JK: can't remember...was really con earned about them
BC: were they improper?
JK: without foundation
BC: ur approach to WS and strike out where u make allegations against AB I suggest. Its fair to say u have been outraged and dismissive of SB response?
Jk: don't agree
BC: u agreed her response should not be sent to Miss Mgarhi
JK: without foundation
BC: ur approach to WS and strike out where u make allegations against AB I suggest. Its fair to say u have been outraged and dismissive of SB response?
Jk: don't agree
BC: u agreed her response should not be sent to Miss Mgarhi
JK: yes had very personal info.
BC: didn't ask her consent to send?
JK: agreed
BC: didn't even tell her seeking advice
JK: true
BC: that's not transparency u said was paramount
JK: accept that
BC: didn't ask her consent to send?
JK: agreed
BC: didn't even tell her seeking advice
JK: true
BC: that's not transparency u said was paramount
JK: accept that
BC: did you review comms?
JK: big concern was whether we could report her if in breach of BSB.. was very happy Catherine Mugarhi said it wasn't so didn't need to report
BC: page 297, SH summary of AB response in re to Morgan page tweet didn't include cotton ceiling or coercison
JK: big concern was whether we could report her if in breach of BSB.. was very happy Catherine Mugarhi said it wasn't so didn't need to report
BC: page 297, SH summary of AB response in re to Morgan page tweet didn't include cotton ceiling or coercison
JK: didn't do a compare and contrast. Ms looked at everything
BC: in a finding for likely breach...we're not in same position as CM and dint have explanation.
JK: sire I'd have read at the time
BC: u didn't include in your WS?
BC: in a finding for likely breach...we're not in same position as CM and dint have explanation.
JK: sire I'd have read at the time
BC: u didn't include in your WS?
JK: yes as explained by MHL.
BC: the reason I suggest u made no ref to many matters we've identified in your first WS because u appreciated there was antipathy towards ABs beliefs.
JK: absolutely disagree...noone said that.. won't find sine suggestion of collusion...
BC: the reason I suggest u made no ref to many matters we've identified in your first WS because u appreciated there was antipathy towards ABs beliefs.
JK: absolutely disagree...noone said that.. won't find sine suggestion of collusion...
JK: was trying to be fair
BC: that factor about prejudice of beliefs and ur outrage of making allegations of discrimination against her caused u to uphold complaint.
JK: absolutely not. MS gave consideration. ...I was happy to accept what MS said...
BC: that factor about prejudice of beliefs and ur outrage of making allegations of discrimination against her caused u to uphold complaint.
JK: absolutely not. MS gave consideration. ...I was happy to accept what MS said...
BC: u were determined to find something against her to uphold actions
JK: no...we wouldn't have gone to the trouble to get it right as SH says in emails
BC: u agree u upheld complaint of two tweets?
JK: never used that language asked her to take down tweets
JK: no...we wouldn't have gone to the trouble to get it right as SH says in emails
BC: u agree u upheld complaint of two tweets?
JK: never used that language asked her to take down tweets
BC: and likely to be in breach of BSB and serious suggestion to make
JK: we didn't make that it wasn't breach but likely to be in breach. Don't know I agree.
BC: I don't want to be criticised for asking more Ws than necessary...but do u not see that allegations of breach of BSB
JK: we didn't make that it wasn't breach but likely to be in breach. Don't know I agree.
BC: I don't want to be criticised for asking more Ws than necessary...but do u not see that allegations of breach of BSB
And the implication of a finding like that, they risk further action
JK: no anything anyone does is regarded on own merits. She's said she wasn't taking them down ...and still tweeting inflammatory fascistic tweets
JK: no anything anyone does is regarded on own merits. She's said she wasn't taking them down ...and still tweeting inflammatory fascistic tweets
BC: u were angry about allegations?
JK: of course I was upset
(Mussed)
JK: we discussed privilege point but nuts about bolts MS sid.
BC: don't want to know advice but did u approve all comms subject to legal privilege?
JK: yes, SH can deal as her area
BC: u urself are a lawyer
JK: of course I was upset
(Mussed)
JK: we discussed privilege point but nuts about bolts MS sid.
BC: don't want to know advice but did u approve all comms subject to legal privilege?
JK: yes, SH can deal as her area
BC: u urself are a lawyer
JK: I did approve if that cuts to the chase
BC: privilege could not be attached about whether to include SW
JK: I'll let someone else answer
BC: ill invite inferences to be drawn from your non answer
JK: not a non answer
BC: privilege could not be attached about whether to include SW
JK: I'll let someone else answer
BC: ill invite inferences to be drawn from your non answer
JK: not a non answer
BC: in response to access request, u were annoyed AB put u to the trouble to respond
JK: no
BC: u made a statement plainly untrue, under redactions, was nobody asking in Corp capacity for GCC?
JK: I've described circumstances not deliberate untruth
JK: no
BC: u made a statement plainly untrue, under redactions, was nobody asking in Corp capacity for GCC?
JK: I've described circumstances not deliberate untruth
BC: no more Ws
EJ: Q from panel and how does GCC manage working groups.. are they left to get on with it?
JK: a proper group then there is oversight...if the TRWG, they were left to own devices and no oversight
EJ: Q from panel and how does GCC manage working groups.. are they left to get on with it?
JK: a proper group then there is oversight...if the TRWG, they were left to own devices and no oversight
EJ: IO any Qs
IO: no
EJ: AH?
AH: page 558 and u were asked qs about SL and SW looking for partner and GRa. Was there any partnership between SW for strategic litigation?
JK: no
AH: 1072
IO: no
EJ: AH?
AH: page 558 and u were asked qs about SL and SW looking for partner and GRa. Was there any partnership between SW for strategic litigation?
JK: no
AH: 1072
AH: u were asked about internal comms [reads] did she ever provide to MOC productive suggestions to move forwards?
JK: no and not to board
JK: no and not to board
AH: 568, emails and one matter not raised. You'll see a response from AB and u come back with result of investigations. She says she's happy to leave it there. Any time after she indicated concern?
JK: no
JK: no
AH: u reply about her concerns, did she revert to u and put forward a proxy
JK: no and we'd be happy to put in place if she had
AH: the way the allegations were put to you on the basis rather obliquely. Read to yourself para 3 and 4 at 170 and 171
JK: no and we'd be happy to put in place if she had
AH: the way the allegations were put to you on the basis rather obliquely. Read to yourself para 3 and 4 at 170 and 171
AH: what's being put is that u and other members of Chambers were withholding work fromAB, what do u say to that?
JK: so upsetting, without shred of evidence, all of us with integrity, totally offensive
JK: so upsetting, without shred of evidence, all of us with integrity, totally offensive
AH: and here.. that he managed a Situ which resulted no work for AB. Did that happen?
JK: absolutely not
AH: was Mr Charley tenant given just ructions not to clerk AB?
JK: no completely ridiculous
AH: are u aware when teams were switched
JK: absolutely not
AH: was Mr Charley tenant given just ructions not to clerk AB?
JK: no completely ridiculous
AH: are u aware when teams were switched
BC: before AH answers.. this is now evidence not in statement.
AH: ill wait tro be put to clerks. As far as Tennat is concerned he was instructed to cease work for SmAB?
JK: no
AH: heading 172...I want u to be clear what's being said. U are one of the ppl said to have victimised
AH: ill wait tro be put to clerks. As far as Tennat is concerned he was instructed to cease work for SmAB?
JK: no
AH: heading 172...I want u to be clear what's being said. U are one of the ppl said to have victimised
Look here...[lists GCC names] at members if TRWG.. I want u to Read 175. Was TWG an official Chambers group?
JK: no never presented a report
Ah: any special status?
JK: no
AH: how many working groups?
JK: don't know
AH: 2, 10?
JK: more than that. I didn't follow this group
JK: no never presented a report
Ah: any special status?
JK: no
AH: how many working groups?
JK: don't know
AH: 2, 10?
JK: more than that. I didn't follow this group
AH: could it act as a spokesman for Chambers?
JK: no
AH: this is email from Maragarite Russel.. same time as MB and AB msgs. Was suggested MR was scared of speaking out. What do u say?
JK: no.. anyone who knows MR, she set up Chambers in 70s...brave thing to do...out lesbian
JK: no
AH: this is email from Maragarite Russel.. same time as MB and AB msgs. Was suggested MR was scared of speaking out. What do u say?
JK: no.. anyone who knows MR, she set up Chambers in 70s...brave thing to do...out lesbian
JK: extraordinary to be out lesbian at the time. We wouldn't be sitting where we are
AH: how many women?
JK: roughly 50/50
AH: what do u say to the assertion women were frightened to speak their mind
JK: absolute disgrace. Women more than capable..offensive to them
AH: how many women?
JK: roughly 50/50
AH: what do u say to the assertion women were frightened to speak their mind
JK: absolute disgrace. Women more than capable..offensive to them
AH: was said u showed nothing but antipathy to AB...this email, look at foot of it. You say "you're sorry and don't condone response" and then go on about process. Was that said sincerely?
JK: absolutely was and later stage AB accused that we weren't concerned about her safety
JK: absolutely was and later stage AB accused that we weren't concerned about her safety
JK: I said AB should go to police as AB had the evidence.
AH: this email with u and Peter Wilcox. He emails u and indicates wants to send email to AB in spirit of friendship. Read through.
AG: yes
AH: this email with u and Peter Wilcox. He emails u and indicates wants to send email to AB in spirit of friendship. Read through.
AG: yes
JK: I started my reply...I was sitting on bench...you'll see I've just got off phone and run out of steam and I finish email there
AH: u say man thing is to make her know l she's supported and your worn out. U were making point of comms to PW
JK: yes
AH: u say man thing is to make her know l she's supported and your worn out. U were making point of comms to PW
JK: yes
JK: I say I can understand
AH: page 620 please. Email from DM, he begins with tweets about GCC.. suggested had u read them u would have seen GCC was not the target. 6363.
AH: page 620 please. Email from DM, he begins with tweets about GCC.. suggested had u read them u would have seen GCC was not the target. 6363.
AH: to who is that directed?
JK: GCC
AH: 6364...follow up tweet...to who is that directed?
JK: GCC
AH: 6355 Roxy tweets...whom is that directed?
Jk: GCC
AH: 6402
JK: GCC
AH: 6364...follow up tweet...to who is that directed?
JK: GCC
AH: 6355 Roxy tweets...whom is that directed?
Jk: GCC
AH: 6402
AH: u were taken at length to this response, u say u knew response likely to generate. What was that?
JK: if u say womething provocative you're gonna get a response to that.
JK: if u say womething provocative you're gonna get a response to that.
AH: u were asked about outcome of detriment 4 and suggested to u that making a finding that in breach of BSB was serious. U said not publically announced. Go to 3726. Sb wrote to u saying she didn't want any of this in public domain.
AH: u say in re to AB...wasn't in GCC interest...
JK: yes, we'd have been public had she wanted.
AH: [reads email] did she come back to you?
JK: no
AH: ever been willing to discuss?
JK: on day in my sisters funeral...even then I replied and said wanted to meet
JK: yes, we'd have been public had she wanted.
AH: [reads email] did she come back to you?
JK: no
AH: ever been willing to discuss?
JK: on day in my sisters funeral...even then I replied and said wanted to meet
AH: is this the email?
JK: yes
AH: go to ABs msg. After giving her condolences AB says will discuss at a later date. Were there discussions?
JK: none that came to any fruition.
AH: those are my Qs.
EJ: JK can leave
JK: yes
AH: go to ABs msg. After giving her condolences AB says will discuss at a later date. Were there discussions?
JK: none that came to any fruition.
AH: those are my Qs.
EJ: JK can leave
EJ: 5 min break I know AH has to leave.
We are back. JR is taking over from AH.
EJ: next witness is Charlie Tennant (CT)
Let's go ahead.
[EJ takes CT through affirm]
EJ: next witness is Charlie Tennant (CT)
Let's go ahead.
[EJ takes CT through affirm]
JR: good morning. Turn to page 413
CT: yes
JR: confirm ur statement
CT: yes
JR: there's an amendment u want to make
IO: he's not been sworn
EJ: yes he just affirmed
IO: sorry missed
CT: yes
JR: confirm ur statement
CT: yes
JR: there's an amendment u want to make
IO: he's not been sworn
EJ: yes he just affirmed
IO: sorry missed
JR: additional words u want to add.
CT: he had his office elsewhere and didn't sit opposite u.
EJ: caught the emndment but missed paragraph
JR: turn to your WS 421. Signed by u
CT: yes
JR: contents true
CT: yes
CT: he had his office elsewhere and didn't sit opposite u.
EJ: caught the emndment but missed paragraph
JR: turn to your WS 421. Signed by u
CT: yes
JR: contents true
CT: yes
JR: I have a supplement Q, can I ask?
EJ: yes
JR: did that practice review take place in 2019?
CT: no
JR: supplemental bundle, page 155. That's an email from AB to u ref practice review. Tell us reason for postponement
CT: (missed)
EJ: yes
JR: did that practice review take place in 2019?
CT: no
JR: supplemental bundle, page 155. That's an email from AB to u ref practice review. Tell us reason for postponement
CT: (missed)
JR: did she come back to u about practice review?
CT: no
JR: ref to playing darts badly...what was the event?
CT: crime scene get together...First thing I did in my new role...went to flight club and spent time with AB
CT: no
JR: ref to playing darts badly...what was the event?
CT: crime scene get together...First thing I did in my new role...went to flight club and spent time with AB
BC: good morning. GCC bundle page 45. This is part of CC WS about crime clerking team. U started 2014?
CT: yes
BC: Keith pointer was head ?
CT: yet
BC: he left in Dec 2017
CT: he did
BC: u were senior clerk in crime team?
CT: yes
BC: structure of clerk room in hierarchical?
CT: yes
BC: Keith pointer was head ?
CT: yet
BC: he left in Dec 2017
CT: he did
BC: u were senior clerk in crime team?
CT: yes
BC: structure of clerk room in hierarchical?
CT: yes
BC: [describes layout] look at para 21 of CC WS, page 48. He says in procuring work rests on himself and you?
CT: yes
BC: So top of structure?
CT: if they have good relationships they may
BC: requires contacts?
CT: yes
BC: [describes layout] look at para 21 of CC WS, page 48. He says in procuring work rests on himself and you?
CT: yes
BC: So top of structure?
CT: if they have good relationships they may
BC: requires contacts?
CT: yes
BC: clerks at middle end.. predominace happens at senior end
CT: yes
BC: junior end more practical
CT: yeh ill take that
BC: Overall allocation overseen by u and CC
CT: yes
BC: u both have partic oversight on big brief?
CT: yes
BC: junior end more practical
CT: yeh ill take that
BC: Overall allocation overseen by u and CC
CT: yes
BC: u both have partic oversight on big brief?
BC: already noted how relationships important with barristers
CT: whole team
BC: need to know barristers to clerk effectively
CT: yes
BC: what strengths are?
CT: yes where they want to travel and what they don't want to do
BC: u don't see barristers in actions so reliant on
CT: whole team
BC: need to know barristers to clerk effectively
CT: yes
BC: what strengths are?
CT: yes where they want to travel and what they don't want to do
BC: u don't see barristers in actions so reliant on
What solicitors say, barristers say, and members of Chambers
CT: not really fed back to clerks
BC: strange relationship, dependant on each other
CT: yes we need them all to be in court else we don't get paid
CT: not really fed back to clerks
BC: strange relationship, dependant on each other
CT: yes we need them all to be in court else we don't get paid
BC: ppl in Chambers who are managers an influences who have oversight of clerks?
CT: don't ten d to get much info
BC: status matter? In terms of who is running Chambers it's ppl at the top u need to keep happy?
CT: don't ten d to get much info
BC: status matter? In terms of who is running Chambers it's ppl at the top u need to keep happy?
CT: every barrister important to us. No info filters through to look after whoever
BC: CC focuses his clerks on silks and juniors
CT: has a say on all
BC: Day to day contact he is main point of contact?
CT: yes
BC: CC focuses his clerks on silks and juniors
CT: has a say on all
BC: Day to day contact he is main point of contact?
CT: yes
BC: main point of contact for all barristers
CT: most have a clerk they go to
BC: most senior juniors go to senior clerks...less senior have less senior clerks
CT: don't agree
BC: u had primary contact with AB
CT: not really. I was based on diary
CT: most have a clerk they go to
BC: most senior juniors go to senior clerks...less senior have less senior clerks
CT: don't agree
BC: u had primary contact with AB
CT: not really. I was based on diary
BC: look at 1143, AB sent email to CC and gave u a present
CT: can't remember but believe so
BC: she thanked u for the work u had done during year
CT: if she says so I can't remember 2018
CT: can't remember but believe so
BC: she thanked u for the work u had done during year
CT: if she says so I can't remember 2018
BC: email reflects by end of w018 her practice was that of senior junior in crime
CT: she had a good 2018
BC: page 189. Do u recognise primary and secondary clerking?
[Disparity about page numbers and bundles]
CT: she had a good 2018
BC: page 189. Do u recognise primary and secondary clerking?
[Disparity about page numbers and bundles]
CT: can't find it
EH: u could read it out.
BC: do u agree during 2017 and 2018, AB was instructed on large no. Of cases which was result of clerking effort. Understand primary clerking?
CT: that's a new thing to us
BC: not interested in terminology
EH: u could read it out.
BC: do u agree during 2017 and 2018, AB was instructed on large no. Of cases which was result of clerking effort. Understand primary clerking?
CT: that's a new thing to us
BC: not interested in terminology
BC: difficult to do.. can we get supplementary statement to witness
EJ: could Doyle Clayton send it
RW: given 1 hour til lunch can we have short break
EJ: 3 mins
EJ: could Doyle Clayton send it
RW: given 1 hour til lunch can we have short break
EJ: 3 mins
We are back.
EJ: do u have statement
CT: no. Noone can find it.
EJ: not the supplementary bundle but supplementary WS. Doyle Clayton can u send it? Are other solicitors online?
IO: yes Miss mgwigan is around.
EJ: I thought it be circulated
IO: sent on May 3rd
EJ: suprised GCC
EJ: do u have statement
CT: no. Noone can find it.
EJ: not the supplementary bundle but supplementary WS. Doyle Clayton can u send it? Are other solicitors online?
IO: yes Miss mgwigan is around.
EJ: I thought it be circulated
IO: sent on May 3rd
EJ: suprised GCC
Witnesses havent seen it. Send it quickly.
Another short break to print out. Back 12.09
Another short break to print out. Back 12.09
We are back.
EJ: do you have them ow
CT: yes
BC: para 4. Do u see in bold the word 'primary'.. trials AB did that year?
CT: yes
BC: then para 8, she received a private brief on racially aggravated assaults
CT: believe so
BC: u were dealing with her primarily?
CT: no
EJ: do you have them ow
CT: yes
BC: para 4. Do u see in bold the word 'primary'.. trials AB did that year?
CT: yes
BC: then para 8, she received a private brief on racially aggravated assaults
CT: believe so
BC: u were dealing with her primarily?
CT: no
BC: another good case here?
CT: yes
BC: another primary clerk case CGJ, another good brief?
CT: yes
BC: in terms of new instructions...a murder brief good for her to get
CT: yes
BC: u would agree the good briefs reflects good clerking?
CT: could say it or luck...
CT: yes
BC: another primary clerk case CGJ, another good brief?
CT: yes
BC: in terms of new instructions...a murder brief good for her to get
CT: yes
BC: u would agree the good briefs reflects good clerking?
CT: could say it or luck...
CT: same firms to point out
BC: case of DM.. that was some hoe an adoration. Was a multi defendant case and you would agree AB worked hard and good result?
CT: yes
BC: couldn't agree verdict due to irregularity...repeated retrials.. life at bar can go short
CT: or long yes
BC: case of DM.. that was some hoe an adoration. Was a multi defendant case and you would agree AB worked hard and good result?
CT: yes
BC: couldn't agree verdict due to irregularity...repeated retrials.. life at bar can go short
CT: or long yes
BC: job of clerk is to smooth out irregularities?
CT: try to do best yeah
BC: one defendants got released straight away
CT: don't know
BC: that case reflected the health of ABs practice...doing good work and doing well
CT: had a few good cases
CT: try to do best yeah
BC: one defendants got released straight away
CT: don't know
BC: that case reflected the health of ABs practice...doing good work and doing well
CT: had a few good cases
BC: 105 of main bundle. Have u seen before?
CT: no
BC: letter from Judge Hails...[reads " really enjoyed trial. U showed tenacity above call of duty'] does that reflect feedback for AB?
CT: said in WS she had good ability
BC: shed had flourishing practice benefitting from good
CT: no
BC: letter from Judge Hails...[reads " really enjoyed trial. U showed tenacity above call of duty'] does that reflect feedback for AB?
CT: said in WS she had good ability
BC: shed had flourishing practice benefitting from good
Clerking.
BC: didn't have much of following which held her back.
BC: one point to address about time SB takes off. Page 1415 if GCC bundle. U say her time off in 2019 that most member take 4-6 weeks. Look at 5521
BC: didn't have much of following which held her back.
BC: one point to address about time SB takes off. Page 1415 if GCC bundle. U say her time off in 2019 that most member take 4-6 weeks. Look at 5521
BC: table there about earning and keep free days...holiday days...are u prepared ro take it from me if u exclude person who took maternity leave...the average leave for barristers in both years is 47 and a half days?
CT: if u done the workings out, guess so
CT: if u done the workings out, guess so
BC: people can check my maths which is not infallible but that's about 9 and a half weeks
CT: I guess so
BC: So yours is an underestimate
CT: yeah but only 12 looked out of 60
BC: were looking at ppl indicated doing crime. In your exp...do more senior take more time off?
CT: I guess so
BC: So yours is an underestimate
CT: yeah but only 12 looked out of 60
BC: were looking at ppl indicated doing crime. In your exp...do more senior take more time off?
BC: she's not at the top or the bottom of who takes time off
CT: looking at the days..yeah
BC: what u don't say is there's been any change in her pattern?
CT: no she picks & chooses like any barrister
BC: is it 9 months accepted time in Chambers
CT: don't think anything says that
CT: looking at the days..yeah
BC: what u don't say is there's been any change in her pattern?
CT: no she picks & chooses like any barrister
BC: is it 9 months accepted time in Chambers
CT: don't think anything says that
BC: u knew u could call her up and suggest cases?
CT: no we usually take it that they're away
BC: examples here from 2019. Page 1167 in main bundle. We can see here, AB says she'll be away.. she books away for that period doesn't she?
CT: yes
BC:says she'll do commitment in diary
CT: no we usually take it that they're away
BC: examples here from 2019. Page 1167 in main bundle. We can see here, AB says she'll be away.. she books away for that period doesn't she?
CT: yes
BC:says she'll do commitment in diary
CT: yes
BC: 332. This is her diary...in addition to hearing she did another one in middle of period marked away. That must have come in after marking away
CT: that was telephone hearing and she could be anywhere to do that
BC: 332. This is her diary...in addition to hearing she did another one in middle of period marked away. That must have come in after marking away
CT: that was telephone hearing and she could be anywhere to do that
BC: page 1323.. she says she looks like she'll be back from leave early. Go to 1175. U can see there's an email from CC indicating that someone at NTC wants to instruct SB on murder/GBH in the end. Clear example of CC contacting SB while she's away?
CT:yes but someone asked 4 her
CT:yes but someone asked 4 her
BC: there's no doubt u can contact her
CT: if she's away she's away
BC: if u know she wants to develop practice...of course u know u can phone her
CT: in passing yes but if down as away she's away
BC: turn to diary and clerking AB received 2019
CT: if she's away she's away
BC: if u know she wants to develop practice...of course u know u can phone her
CT: in passing yes but if down as away she's away
BC: turn to diary and clerking AB received 2019
BC: 231....she finished SD trial in Jan and that'd gone short
CT: yeh meant to be 4 weeks but 12 days
BC: there was a gap into middle distance
Ct: she had a trial in feb...had 3 week gap
BC: then clerks job to step in and look for work?
CT: yes but AB took time out
CT: yeh meant to be 4 weeks but 12 days
BC: there was a gap into middle distance
Ct: she had a trial in feb...had 3 week gap
BC: then clerks job to step in and look for work?
CT: yes but AB took time out
BC: AB got no call in Jan
CT: guess so can't remember
BC: just pick up evidence of work being offered to AB. Go to page 1154. There's set of emails run backwards. Start at 1158.. inquiry for bail app quoted at 400. That would involve AB taking instructions and reading papers?
CT: guess so can't remember
BC: just pick up evidence of work being offered to AB. Go to page 1154. There's set of emails run backwards. Start at 1158.. inquiry for bail app quoted at 400. That would involve AB taking instructions and reading papers?
CT: no probably heard in the morning
BC: don't know the time
CT: guessing game
Bc: could be an hour or a day...you've got AB got her cases of up to 5000 a day. We asked her if she wanted to do it for £350
BC: bail App is basic work
CT: can be
BC: don't know the time
CT: guessing game
Bc: could be an hour or a day...you've got AB got her cases of up to 5000 a day. We asked her if she wanted to do it for £350
BC: bail App is basic work
CT: can be
BC: next evidence we have of AB being offered...plainly not the sort of work at her level?
CT: just a gap filler to keep her earnings
BC: 3 day crime isn't her level
CT: more senior than AB do them
CT: just a gap filler to keep her earnings
BC: 3 day crime isn't her level
CT: more senior than AB do them
BC:then page 1272. Here AB is given access to a bundle in a case and then asked to be reassigned [reads]...not her level is it?
CT: can say that bit if counsel wasn't to earn money. Work was slow. Up to AB but repercussions not earning money
BC: AB has always managed her practice
CT: can say that bit if counsel wasn't to earn money. Work was slow. Up to AB but repercussions not earning money
BC: AB has always managed her practice
BC: you're agreeing she's entitled to do it or not
CT: yes
BC: that's always been her practice
CT: yes
BC: What's different is the offered of work are different for her level
CT: work was slow in 2019
BC: might also note, 1273, AB copies CC into response. Signal she's not happy?
CT: yes
BC: that's always been her practice
CT: yes
BC: What's different is the offered of work are different for her level
CT: work was slow in 2019
BC: might also note, 1273, AB copies CC into response. Signal she's not happy?
CT: possibly yeah
BC: the other note is you weren't involved in these examples?
CT: no
BC: first comms with u
CT: aways dates
BC: not u initiating contact with her...
CT: saying shes away
BC: wants a practice review...has empty diary and wants review
CT: dont read it like that
BC: the other note is you weren't involved in these examples?
CT: no
BC: first comms with u
CT: aways dates
BC: not u initiating contact with her...
CT: saying shes away
BC: wants a practice review...has empty diary and wants review
CT: dont read it like that
BC: another here that's not her level...she's here declining another 3 day trial...again not her level of call
CT: and says no worries if you don't fancy
BC: Mr Harvey is dealing is relation to AB
CT: yes I moved away because of promotion
BC: 175. The brief was described as
CT: and says no worries if you don't fancy
BC: Mr Harvey is dealing is relation to AB
CT: yes I moved away because of promotion
BC: 175. The brief was described as
Secondary clerking
CT: yes someone asked for her
BC: 1295. U can see that ur suggesting practice review
CT: yes
BC: then JR took u to an unnecessary supplement to bundle as its at 193. 1356, SB has to postpone and there we see it was put to AB that case were short.
CT: yes someone asked for her
BC: 1295. U can see that ur suggesting practice review
CT: yes
BC: then JR took u to an unnecessary supplement to bundle as its at 193. 1356, SB has to postpone and there we see it was put to AB that case were short.
BC: AB postpones the review and dint happen with anyone did they
CT: yeah
BC: rarely happens for anyone
CT: yeah has been like that
BC: a general crime team event wasn't specific
CT: whole team
BC: AB played darts and left
CT: was there a while. I spoke to her for an hour
CT: yeah
BC: rarely happens for anyone
CT: yeah has been like that
BC: a general crime team event wasn't specific
CT: whole team
BC: AB played darts and left
CT: was there a while. I spoke to her for an hour
BC: 1382. Am I right that this in April 2019 is first potential cas eu contact AB about?
CT: don't know
BC: reality is you'd ceased to be point of contact to her
CT: clerks looking at diary for all members
CT: don't know
BC: reality is you'd ceased to be point of contact to her
CT: clerks looking at diary for all members
CT: I said to AB if she wanted to do and didn't affect our relationship with solicitors.
BC: she offered free advice
BC: she wouldn't be paid
CT: she would be by helping out
BC: 1401. This was only second proposal of case
CT: dunno what opportunity report says
BC: she offered free advice
BC: she wouldn't be paid
CT: she would be by helping out
BC: 1401. This was only second proposal of case
CT: dunno what opportunity report says
BC: [ reads "it is may and I've not been offered any case of substance..."] she was right?
CT: not at all. AB calms down after my response. Leaves me VM. Dunno what she said
BC: she's understands she has to be harmonious with u
CT: don't agree
CT: not at all. AB calms down after my response. Leaves me VM. Dunno what she said
BC: she's understands she has to be harmonious with u
CT: don't agree
CT: the solicitor to CF case is big client of GCC...sometimes have to do work below u and everyone else accepts that
BC: she's right she wasn't offered?
CT: slow year
BC: u didn't have contact with her offering her cases again that year?
CT: DC case
BC: that was a return
BC: she's right she wasn't offered?
CT: slow year
BC: u didn't have contact with her offering her cases again that year?
CT: DC case
BC: that was a return
CT: you make money from returns.
BC: in terms of opps in prev years, we can't tell from this doc at all can we what type of clerking effort went into the so called opportunity?
CT: we don't give all who is available.
BC: in terms of opps in prev years, we can't tell from this doc at all can we what type of clerking effort went into the so called opportunity?
CT: we don't give all who is available.
BC: this contains some cases we've looked at where she was put forward
CT: barristers on lists that fit
BC: some examples u were involved with. 1250. You're putting AB on list for 2 day trial. 11 ppl on list
CT: private case and wanted a spectrum and we did that
CT: barristers on lists that fit
BC: some examples u were involved with. 1250. You're putting AB on list for 2 day trial. 11 ppl on list
CT: private case and wanted a spectrum and we did that
BC: 1268. U say u 'could' have AB like an afterthought?
CT: not at all...needed to check in
BC: 1281. Here u are putting her forward in list of 4 and 3
CT: bigger cases
BC: this isn't effective clerking. Putting AB on beauty parade
CT: not at all. Fair allocation of work
CT: not at all...needed to check in
BC: 1281. Here u are putting her forward in list of 4 and 3
CT: bigger cases
BC: this isn't effective clerking. Putting AB on beauty parade
CT: not at all. Fair allocation of work
CT: if they come to be and ask for recommendations I'll say but need to be open and fair in their work.
BC: proposition u keep mentioning that everyone had bad year. Look at 243
CT: everyone had a slow year if they lost work. There's a difference
BC: proposition u keep mentioning that everyone had bad year. Look at 243
CT: everyone had a slow year if they lost work. There's a difference
BC: theres a table by RM and AB was joint highest that year
CT: she had luck that year
BC: if on billing rather than income. Page 5505. U can see on billing, AB s billing goes from (missed but about 100 to 30K)
CT: if u say so
BC: reality is ABs drop bigger than everyone else
CT: she had luck that year
BC: if on billing rather than income. Page 5505. U can see on billing, AB s billing goes from (missed but about 100 to 30K)
CT: if u say so
BC: reality is ABs drop bigger than everyone else
BC: because u stopped being her primary cases
CT: have to take into consideration of work she wanted to do. Unlucky with abandoned cases.
BC: u can keep track on AB earnings?
CT: clerks don't do that...
CT: have to take into consideration of work she wanted to do. Unlucky with abandoned cases.
BC: u can keep track on AB earnings?
CT: clerks don't do that...
BC: I suggest that the change to ABs clerking was result of signal or instruction from CC?
CT: absolutely not we don't get anything from holding ppl back. So it's completely false and wild accusation really.
CT: absolutely not we don't get anything from holding ppl back. So it's completely false and wild accusation really.
BC: those all my questions
EJ: don't think tribunal has Qs.
IO: no Qs from SW
JR: go back to ABs statement. U were asked about paras 4, 2 and 13. In those there are sub paras. Tell tribunal.is that complete list?
CT: no it wouldn't be.
EJ: don't think tribunal has Qs.
IO: no Qs from SW
JR: go back to ABs statement. U were asked about paras 4, 2 and 13. In those there are sub paras. Tell tribunal.is that complete list?
CT: no it wouldn't be.
JR: u were asked about AB time off. Were u aware she was off in 2018
CT: yes, 2 months
JR: how long did she say she'd be away for?
CT: a month
JR: in July she was off sick
CT: 3 weeks a month I believe
CT: yes, 2 months
JR: how long did she say she'd be away for?
CT: a month
JR: in July she was off sick
CT: 3 weeks a month I believe
JR: page 1160. It was put to u there was no contact in Jan. Read out date of email
CT: 4th January
JR: what year
CT: 2019
BC: Q I put was no contact in remainder on Jan when case finished
JR: case finished on Jan 22. Turn to 1163
CT: 4th January
JR: what year
CT: 2019
BC: Q I put was no contact in remainder on Jan when case finished
JR: case finished on Jan 22. Turn to 1163
JR: what was purpose of email?
CT: an abuse argument
JR: 3132. Here u are and what are u doing to advance her practice?
CT: putting her forward for another case
JR: was put to u that SB was an afterthought. Ur answer was u thought she had a case. Look at diary for Feb2019
CT: an abuse argument
JR: 3132. Here u are and what are u doing to advance her practice?
CT: putting her forward for another case
JR: was put to u that SB was an afterthought. Ur answer was u thought she had a case. Look at diary for Feb2019
JR: what was happening in diary there
(missed answer as phone rang in hearing)
JR: page 170, detriment 1, read para 3 and 4 to yourself.
CT: yes
JR: 2 Qs. First...she's not saying YOU ate doing anything bad to her?
CT: no
JR: talks of conspiracy with CC
BC interrupts
(missed answer as phone rang in hearing)
JR: page 170, detriment 1, read para 3 and 4 to yourself.
CT: yes
JR: 2 Qs. First...she's not saying YOU ate doing anything bad to her?
CT: no
JR: talks of conspiracy with CC
BC interrupts
JR: no I will answer the Q...
(Can't understand as all talking at ine)
BC: it's not the way to put questions in a dramatic way
JR: don't patronise I'm not having that
BC: I made a reasonable intervention. Happened with AH...no need for rhetorical flourish
JR: the need for..
(Can't understand as all talking at ine)
BC: it's not the way to put questions in a dramatic way
JR: don't patronise I'm not having that
BC: I made a reasonable intervention. Happened with AH...no need for rhetorical flourish
JR: the need for..
JR: I don't believe I'm exaggerating. The wya it is put that CC acted with other members of chambers.
EJ: inferred to CC but doesn't say CT knew about it
JR: he was asked about it in a way that wasn't exactly faithful to paras 3 and 4...
BC: I put point that change in clerking
EJ: inferred to CC but doesn't say CT knew about it
JR: he was asked about it in a way that wasn't exactly faithful to paras 3 and 4...
BC: I put point that change in clerking
BC: and done by CC. Put it fairly and squarely and witness answered
JR: it's only fair if CT can say he noticed it?
EJ: the views of CC in respect of what's said is not pleaded is known by CT. He's given firm answer. Any other points?
JR: no.
[We resume at 2pm]
JR: it's only fair if CT can say he noticed it?
EJ: the views of CC in respect of what's said is not pleaded is known by CT. He's given firm answer. Any other points?
JR: no.
[We resume at 2pm]
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
