Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning from the 26th May hearing of Allison Bailey's case against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers. Court resumes at 9AM with cross examination of Michelle Brewer

Here is Allison Bailey’s witness statement: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/upl…

There is a list of the abbreviations we use and previous threads here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

Some key abbreviations for this morning:
GCC = Garden Court Chamber
MB = Michelle Brewer Barrister at GCC and Founder of TELI. member of TRWG
TELI = Trans Equality Legal Initiative: a group of human rights lawyers and trans rights activists
TRWG = Trans Rights Working Group GCC

SW = Stonewall
STAG = Stonewall Trans Advisory Group
The WALL – digital message board at SW for posts by members of STAG and other trans groups

Session starts
Clerk checks we can see and hear
EJ: Good morning everyone. This is the last day of hearing evidence. Ms Brewer is the first wit? Mr H? Mr H can you hear us? you seem to be muted

Clerk - I've tried to umute AH
AH: yes
EJ: MB first?
AH: yes
EJ: say your name and you'll come up on screen
[waiting]

EJ: give evidence by oath or affirming?
MB: Affirms
EJ: Mr H
AH: MB Good morning
MB: Good morning
AH: turn to your WS. turn to final page
MB: yes
AH: your signature. did you sign 15 Apr 2022
MB: yes

AH: 2 supplemental questions - para 98, p22. you see there you say I have never had access to the SW msg board. turn to bundle P1245 - have you seen this doc before
MB: I have email to me from RdS HoCampaigns SW
AH: add you to platform what do you understand that to mean>?

MB: a link
MB: meeting EHRC
AH: anything to do with STAG?
MB: no
AH: accesslink?
MB: no
AH: when you say never had access. accurate?
MB: no. never accessed. looks like I was given link

AH: P? contract with gendered intelligence. what connection?
MB: trustee of GI. I"ve tried to find out when appointed. think 2017 or 2018. can't track emails
AH: how long for?
MB: gave up end 2019 when becoming a judge
AH: why doesn't it appear?
MB: inadvertently omitted accident

AH: given clarifications, WS true?
MB: yes
AH: turn to supp bundle. Peter Daly comms - P150
MB: let me just... v. small font
AH: you can enlarge
MB: ok I've done
AH: 2nd wit stat of MB, turn to P152. is that your signature?
MB: yes

AH: true?
MB: yes
EJ: Mr Cooper
BC: Para 1 of your ws. you say I do not never believed GC beliefs are bigoted unworthy of respect.
MB: yes
BC: main bundle P595. transcript of training you gave on GRA May 2018, YouTube uploaded June?
MB: yes

BC: P5977. one of the topics was teh spousal veto
MB: yes
BC: the position is spousal veto doesn't prevent someone getting a GRC does it?
MB: you get an interim GRC, then [missed] spouse to get GRC. most problematic element is delay
BC: the effect it doesn't need spousal consent

just remain in the relationship
MB: the spouse has to indicte they are content before full GRC is issued. the panel would have to be satisfied teh spouse is content to remain in marriage
BC: basis for anullment not denying GRC
MB: trying to recall. the annulment not in causes act

MB: the knub of the issue implications for securing full legal recognition and problems with delay in that you've taken me to small snapshot of training on spousal veto.
BC: that's fine. we don't need to go through full detail. lets proceed on basis to delay giving GRC, behind

that is to recognise the interests of the spouse to see if they want to remain in the relationship
MB: need to look at entirety of training. I speak to contractual relationship and that changing. but tease out other issues of DV and in trans inquiry WEC select committee

BC: what i'm interested in is a couple of snapshots. P5977. in discussing spousal veto, what it means if you're married to your spouse, your spouse 'heaven forbid' spouse wants to remain married to you. your comment 'heaven forbid' shows dismissive attitude to interests of

MB: you have to look at really dynamic convo. married to someone now of the same sex what does that speak of transphobia. really engaging part of trainig. Maggie Jones, Stephen Lue excellent

MB: if I was dismissive would have shut down but was engaged in what colleagues had to say and at teh end said family team have to look at closer. and I would benefit from expertise of family team. disagree i was dismissive

BC: P5980 - the spousal veto is about harm to your spouse, essentially transphobia, 'heaven forbid', 'your spouse is in fact a woman'. P5996 2nd para - "as I said that smacks of homophobia and tranphobia, trans people only group get their rights delayed by another". comment smac

smacks of transphobia. your attitude to concerns is 'transphobia' not legitimate concerns
MB: not fair. spectrum of experiences when spouse transitioning. some founded in prejudice. teasing out other peoples views. often when around hansard debate of GRA spousal veto, the

perspective of trans people not taken into account. first time was trans inquiry HoC WEC we got difft perspectives. Louise Hooper, Stephen Lue, Maggie comments and what I was bringing was the impact on trans people and community a sense that T are harmful and wrong, and bad being

married to a T person. if you look at Dr Karl Rutlidge evidence to HoC WEC Trans INqu - dangerous for w experiencing DV. a sense of auth over a spouses identity and body. So BC, this only recently looked at. diff persepective

BC: what you don't say is that there might be legitiate concerns. you say provision itself smacks of transphobia. v. idea of spousal veto transphobia.
MB: trans ppl felt they had been identified as underlying ssense of harm. nothing wrong with that perspective

MB: that's what HoC WEC trans Inq looked at. the point you make about legitimate concerns, that came out in dissc. and I answered. I said ok does being married to a trans p harmful? someone else has a sense of ownership to that legal definition. I drew perspectives that hadn't

EJ: I'm not able to keep up. you mentioned a case can you give me the name
MB: case of MB, pensions case, CGAU, point was that was a couple. TW and her wife married before transition. MB didn't get recognition as wife had to consent, disrespect of MB gender identity picked up by

advocate.
BC: reform of GRA discussion topic. P6018

if you reduce evidence requirements and move to self-id, women who id as feminists [inaudible] concerned men in women's refugees shouldn't be trans inclusionary. is the inaudible bit in the video. you don't regard w with GC beliefs as proper feminists do you?
MB: biological sex

is real is important. that Gender identity is a social construct is reductionist
EJ: you said reductionist?
MB: yes. there was a rhetoric from some that GC feminists single sex spaces blanket exclusion, exceptions in permissive terms blanket. context of that. wrong to say I do

not find GC feminists wholly w/o repsect not tru
EJ: schedule 3?
MB: EqA exceptions. blanket exclusions. should be trans inclusionary
BC: the point you make now not reflected in language ytou used there. your view anyone in rape crisis, DV, refugees shouldn't exclude

MB: missed
EJ: long term something of EqA?
MB: EA refers to single sex exceptions...
EJ: not questioning views. qord in your I missed
MB: not suggesting blanket trans inclusionary have to operate in parameters EA
EJ: reads what MB said... in bundle
MB: law reform

BC: you understand GC feminists single sex spaces reasons based on excl. men for privacy, dignity, safety. you understand the argument they make doesn't change when men id as women, becasue perceptions of w using spaces still matter. you understand
MB: yes
BC: more ambiguous

makes it less easy to enforce. if you make it harder to tell who's a w, you make it more diffct to enforce single sex space. know you won't agree but understand?
MB: yes but not sure how the GRA changes that. to fall withing the sec 7 protections of EA you don't need GRC

MB: discrim provisions to trans comm. Can't understand that that proposition plays out in law
BC: not exploring law, your understanding of GC feminists argument
MB: what self id?
BC: no not law. do you understand arguments in support of Single sex spaces that to use your term

are blanket exclusion
AH: [interupts] she said not blanket
BC: support single sex you understand
MB: repeat back to you... are you saying GC feminists essentially say that the exceptions are a blanket excl. to T ppeople even though section 7 of GRC
BC:not arguing legal position

but principle position that GC feminists adopt. kathleen stock if there are exclusions for excluding men that doesn't change when they id as a wo
MB: is that falling into narrative that TW follow male patterns of violence?
BC: there are a no. of justifications. that's one.

EJ: bring us back to issus in the case. MB do you consider GC feminist views bigoted
BC: P6260 bottom of page, you say "work alot around that issue [ss spaces]" SL says they don't like TW, you say "I agree and they don't like TM as they say lesbians erased". you are ascribing

to them prejudicial views.
MB: I was talking about WPUK not roundtables I was setting up. WPUK position on the exceptions to EA is that they should be blanket excl that should be enforced and org's not doing fined. in my mind brining SS providers around teh table, I don't think

WPUK position fruitful to disc. if you go to the strategy mtg 30 Apr, I identified orgs harvard league, gender critical. WPUK took a stance not fruitful at roundtables.
BC: didn't ask if they were fruitful. it was your comments revealing your prejudicial attitude, ascribing a

a prejudice "they don't like TW" which you have not basis for have you?
MB: at 6204, this narrative that TW follow cis male patterns of violence, conflating TW prisoners primarily sex offenders that was transphobic in my mind. ascribe ot a miniorty class criminialising behaviour

WPUK is something I would take. Cis men. Case FTJ, TW primarily being sex offenders v. unreliable. majority of TW prisoners sex offenders v. harmful narrative.
EJ: check name case?
MB: FDJ - admin case in front of Justice Swift, TW prisoners and sex offences, unreliable stat

statistical evidence. narrative transphobic
BC: not teh same as narr that TW sexual evidence, there is evidence that TW follow patterns of male offending isn't htere?
MB: where? the UN has had to deal with this. Made it v. clear that narrative of male pattern violence of TW

who have COMPLETELY different life experiences is transphobic. from a human rights perspectve..
BC: we won't agree on what statistics show
AH: interrupts
BC: please don't interrupt. P4574
MB: sex matters?
BC: sex matters evidence to select committee

BC reads sex matters evidence "report Sweden, report women are human". there is evidence that TW exhibit male rather than female patterns of offending. you exhibit a prejudice against anyone who makes the argument.
MB: if you make those assertions against a minority who suffer

significan't level of violence. that was presented to panel. we will never agree. they suffer extreme hate crime. to say they are sexual predators is incredibly harmful. rego by UN. yes YES [raised voice] Sex Matters I hope they revisit stats

BC: P6203 you take the view that under EA, self id is the protected characteristic of gender reassignment
MB: simplistic. ppl caught by section 7 of GRA. attributes of not just sex, so self id. someone who intends to transition is underoing transition or has transitioned so capt

captures a significant cohort of ppl
BC: you know it's a controversial view you just set out
MB: you're right shouldn't debate. but EA doesn't require GRC, can't prescribe medical as GRC doesn't require and unlawful under article 8. didn't realise it was controversial

BC: P6203 - protected characteristic, justification for excluding T from SS spaces. you refer to proportionate means of meeting legit aim. Mr Clark comes in and did you understand point he was making that arguments by grps like WPUK need for SS spaces include perception of w usi

women using those spaces for privacy and dignity of w
MB: understand it's GC position. don't understand what Stephen Clark was getting at. (missed transphobic?) I was concluding transphobic
BC: you came in and said transphobic response. you weren't addressing points

about concerns of offending patterns. you were addressing concerns of privacy and dignity
MB: no, not a sophisticated convo. won't repeat. made clear what I thought was transphobic. I didn't draw your ... I said transphobia harmful in those spaces. not sure I can speak further

BC: P6207 we can see the issue. Ms Hooper. the argument GC, is that TW are not W.
MB: reductionists and unfair to GC. perception that TW are male
BC: TW not the experience of female, going to rape crisis, dv, refuge. don't equate to women. you understand req for single sex

not just different experiences but male violence makes w uncomfortable having man in that space. in context of need for rape crisis centres to be single sex you come in "there is a sense of privilege" introduce topic that TW bought up as men benefit from male privilege, you

you understand GC feminist male privilege position?
MB: with their birkenstocks should be attributed to me.
BC: you go on. P6028 people making argument white middle class women, priviliged, just drives me bonkers, they don't have BAME, not their lived expl" classic prejudice on

on your part. middle class white academics.
MB: frustration at the time. trans ppl of colour recognised as refugees don't carry the kind of privilege GC fems. they exp. systemic long term violence, persecution. the idea male privilege frustrating. clients did not have access

to spaces where their views could be articulated
BC: not asking you about clients. asking you about your comments in relation to a different group Ms B. all through this training we see you expressing dismissive, disparaging views of ppl holding GC views.

MB: views that are transphobic and lacking in awareness. stigmatise as sex offenders. YES I will be dismissive. clients I was dealing with have no privilege.

MB: I accept that things GC feminists have said I find transphobic. not core. but way manifested.
BC: break?
EJ: yes break 5 mins. back 10:11

BC: READS "I do not accept that prisoner 5 times more likely to commit. misuse of statistics. I can accept. many people feel inappropriate male with male genitalia. I accept some women prisoners uncomfortable fear increased" in your evidence court gave short shrift. not accurate

BC: conclusion of sex matters.
MB: concerns of statistics v. clear by justice swift and holroyd. stats only from T prisoners to MoJ. unreliable evidence. certainly it was clear from judgement that statistics by admin court unreliable. haven't got judgement in front of me

BC: you relied on it to say 'transphobic' to say TW increased risk of harm to women in women's prisons. suggest biased reading of judgemnet. and prejudiced on your part
MB: quite clear from evidence. Dr Sarah Randall, stats were poor and unreliable. Sex matters confirmation bias

stats to a class. serious discrim. I think it's transphobic
AH: interrupts. madam I will put that the claim failed
EJ: the point BC trying to convey there is bigotry, ET to decide. can we move on?
BC: P1303 [Email from MB proposing TELI]

BC: TELI had campaigning purpose didn't it?
MB: it was a network. we wanted to buld capacity with activists. campaigning? posts on FB, launch conf., could be couched campaigning
BC: P1019 2nd para TELI web page. bring together queer community to form strategic ligitation and

lobbying. not just org for lawyers. org for all groups. one of it's causes lobbying.
MB: what that means is working with 3rd sector orgs and supporting them. if you call it direct lobbying. TELI joint response to GRA consultation. generally assisting 3rd sector. build capacity

BC: the TELI launch conf 2016, you asked GCC to sponsor.
MB: I said can we put money in. not partic successful.
BC: P5921 you spoke "stop. gender recog based on self id" you were promoting self id?
MB: was it? i was giving my analysis. giving my opinon to HoC WEC

BC: your view sys based on self determination
MB: recommendations by WEC for law reform model of self determination was right recommndation to make. that's been reinforced. current recog model at risk of operating unlawfully.

BC: P5917 Tweet Pride Get the L out accused of being transphobic
MB: making very v transphobic statements. one was trans persons are rapists. protesters making transphobic shouting transphobic remarks
BC: views not transphboic. view lesbians defined same sex attraction not

same gender attraction
MB: don't think you can say. right some protestors were challenging same gender attraction. some were saying trans persons were rapists. before I made that statement I was aware accutely transphobic statements made
BC: let me suggest you're misremembering

BC: one individual was a rapist who said they were a lesbian. not all. one
MB: I remember the presenter saying trans persons are rapists. can only speak to what I was aware of at teh time. not ok to say trans persons rapists. that was in MSM reported from the pride event

BC: you were involved in sending out this tweet
MB: I'm not on twitter. I think a Louise in TELI managed TELI twitter. I think I was asked give a comment Michelle. I flagged up trans women of colour at forefront of SW riots in teh 60's

BC: the comment from you was about the group leading London Pride as trasnphobia.
MB: sad thing GC feminists move into transphobic rhetoric. staggering. that's why I put TW of colour SW riots 60's. then GC at pride saying TW rapists

BC: next box. GCC retweeted that. you encouraged?
MB: I don't have twitter. don't recall. not saying I didn't. don't know if there was anyone else from TELI. Louise, not suggesting Louise sent to marketing. the feed above has Louise responding to TELI tweets

BC: P324 May 2016 Trans justice conference
MB: yes Tom arranged it
BC: you spoke
MB: yes
BC: Prof Alex Sharpe, You, others. look P325
AH: I think Prof S not tenant

BC: conf to devise strategies in crim justice system, like TELI partly legal, partly activism
MB: common in GCC that you bring together society with lawyers. that informs the work. that's why included. not sophisticated. often civil soc. invited to build capacity to understand

BC: 2016 you set up TRWG in GCC?
MB: yes
BC: P328 [Email from MB to MW and others June 2016 – subject: TRWG] much in the way you described look 2nd para you refer to TELI including 6th line how to shape lobbying, strategic litigation, conclude para strategic lit/lobbying

BC: turn page P329 BC: P329 [Email cont’d - from MB to MW and others June 2016 – subject: TRWG] "offer us up as a one stop shop specialising in Trans Rights work"

MB: build community on cases. sometimes offshoot with 3rd sector we'd do advisory work. primarily capacity across teams. access to justice for trans ppl

BC: the way that works in chambers is building those relationships is part of biz dev to work for chamers
MB: is and isn't. tends to be work by barristers. some of us proactive. depends on work. individual barristers could forge links with civil societies.

BC: or working group led like TRWG?
MB: roundtables start to see that. but no external corp identity. no outward facing engagement. I had aspirations.
BC: there's a diff btw objective and degree of success. looking at objective
EJ: just watching the time. limited. had 1 hour 3/4

EJ: haven't got to detriments
BC: MB status re detriments involved. take point.
BC: the short point MB, these groups in chambers there's implicit authority to do it on chambers behalf
MB: you do and depends on how you do it.

MB: I haven't seen cohesion. barristers tend to do their own things, instructed in own capacities. only so much you could do. collective conferences, round tables, didn't happen. indv. barristers

BC: P370 BC: P370 [Minutes TRWG April 2018] clear more than an email group. intended to promote marketing and biz dev
MB: my core intention was that individuals build capacity in litigation for trans community

MB: TRWG it was across practice areas. my aim was to build capacity and you speak to civil to work at coal face
BC: P1185 after chambers became SW DC, Mr Lue introduced you to his contacts at SW as one of our ? in Trans rights work
MB: yes

BC: P1254 you were invited to a working group on GRA reform with Stonewall.
MB: collective of trans led organisations to discuss GRA reform
BC: superced Mr Lues intro. put you in touch

MB: trying to remember. I had already done advice for SW in 2018 so known for that. 2019. I thought I was invited as I was previously ... worked on 2 cases in 2018. so that may be why

BC: P1287 [MINUTES - SW strategy GRA reform group] we can see you offering GCC TELI offering pro bono confidential legal advice. seeking to expand GCC connection with SW
MB: [laughs]. I said TELI. I had in mind, I think. er. for TELI a few lawyers happy to offer pro bono

MB: I bought in Lindsay 2018. TRWG wouldn't offer wholesale legal advice
BC: P1312 you and lindsay sambrooks advice on schools guidance.
MB: yes with another lawyer

BC: P1631 we can see Email from client acc mgr at SW to Mr Lue, 5th para. work closely with chambers. TRWG drive discussions, have round table. SL rightly saying TRWG promote relationships with SW
IO: interrupts. Email from SW to Hackl Law
BC: it's to SL and HL

BC: TRWG broaden relatinsips with orgs like SW
MB: never spoke to either of them. don't know how they presented it. [TRWG]. I don't know if anyone else worked w SW. Not sure. it was Stephen and Mia had a communication

BC: p602 [ Email from MB to HoC]
in the course of doing that you talk about the TRWG. "I am part of TRWG, trans rights work, safe space for clients, trans civil org" you are not describing defunct group. you are saying it's alive and well arent you?

MB: I'm saying within the TRWG we have advised. 23 ppl. don't all work. individual barristers instructed on cases concerning trans rights work. not all 23 people doing that. I"m saying to ppl in chambers who know how working groups work

BC: you go on to talk about work done pro bono for SW, EHRC to shape and influence policy. emphasise aligned with activist cause.
MB: no. about indv. barristers. not unusual. I have advised. that's right. 2 occasions. know others engaged EHRC. I had done work with LGBT foundation

MB: indiv. barristers. I'm setting that out
BC: the central reason for raising concerns about claimants tweets is that you view them as transphobic conflicting with chambers views
MB: don't think I say that in the email

MB: I didn't say it. the purpose of setting out TRWG work was issue of access to justice. talk about tweet compromise our chambers safe space. legal space trans community can come to. some of AB tweets compromised that msg

BC: only that she was express views that might offend Trans ppl
MB: Morgan Page tweet v. offensive
BC: do you agree twitter a/c anonymous. criticism of Stephen whittle.
MB: first page of that tweet, she talks about lawyers.
EJ: I'm on P602 are we on diff page?

BC: P642
EJ: what tweet
BC: you are right it includes legal academics in terms lawyers. refer Stephen Whittle said "all you have to grab a bucket make out you're a cleaner. funded by fanatics right wing evangelicals"
MB: protected under article 10. is it legitimate comment? AB

MB: AB entitled but she said 'uninformed' plural lawyers not just Stephen Whittle but one of our tennants, referenced our lawyers
BC: members of chambers allowed to be critical
MB: article 10 but as a member of chambers she was much more senior than SL. she had resp. not to

undermine junior colleagues.
BC: she doesn't mention mr clark anywhere in the tweets does she?
MB: i don't know anything about twitter. i was provided screenshot and assumed HRLA blurb captured in that tweet
BC: she doesn't mention Mr Clark does she?
MB well she mentioned lawyer

and you only have to look up who attended the event
BC: P602
MB: you've got to bear in mind I was asking for guidance and flagging up concerns, not formal complaint. Trans person sent me tweet. She felt dismissive of violence tW experiencing. I can only speak to cohort I represe

represent. all my trans clients went onto be refugees. i was saying AB tweets, this is going to compromise us.
BC: you said claimant views upset client base of yours
MB: make it sound benign. clients victims of trauma. if that impacts access to justice that is a problem as a

barristers chambers. I don't do employment law. I take instructions from victims of serious trauma. the space you take instructions from is really impt. anything that compromises that compromises my ability to take instrucitons. in same way some paintings in our conf rooms distru

disturbing.
AH: interrupt
EJ: compromise clients. safe space. anything else?
MB: No said it all
EJ: time for short break. resume 11:13

back
MB: I dont understand basis of AB points
BC: puts women at risk as self id makes spaces risky
MB: diffct to respond, if I dont know what tweet
BC: I'm going on what you put in your email. children at risk, you understand gender affirmation dangerous for children
MB: issue I

had was that it was saying SW putting children at risk
BC: you say "no outrageous levels of violence ag women in teh UK" P? you have to read this tweet in context. there are no outrageous levels when compared to males. you understand the point she's addressing by saying

TW victims of violence to shut down GC feminists
MB: not clear to me. taken as being dismissive of violence ag TW. that's why my email
BC: all of the points are simply AB making legit arguments from GC perspective

MB: taking them in turn, recognise freedom of expression. I do mention this email.
BC: you made in another email
AH: bottom P602
MB: didn't mention article 10 but in my mind

BC: we've heard HoC didn't do anything in response. you say in para 6 P151 supp bundle, you tell us that you didn't make any calls to any of the ppl HoC Ms Sikkand Ms Harrison. just whilst we consider you phone calls, your phone records P6394 main bundle

they show outgoing calls by you. look back at your WS when you say no calls are you excluding calls from MW, JK, LT and SH that you've addressed
MB: no didn't recv call
BC: and SK, DdM
MB: whatsapp with DdM disclosed. what period?

BC: 16 Oct - 24 Oct 2019
MB: I saw that email exch with EN, that suggested I spoke to Nina and DdM.
BC: come to that
MB: I may have spoken. cannot remember. 17 Oct with Mia. I think morning 20 Oct I called chambers, spoke to member staff. did say to Shaan (SW) there was a mtg

MB: 17 Oct may have spoken to Mia
BC: helpful thankyou. Para 82 of your WS, P19 GCC bundle. pin down this point ab meeting on Mon. you told him (SK SW) that you may have spoken to a member of staff in chambers who told you that. difficulty. we heard from JK there was no plan

EJ: check right place. p78?
BC: yes. she refers to call into chambers b4 call to SK at Stonewall.
EJ: wait for me to get there. yes makes sense
BC: a member of staff is not likely to know board mgt meeting on monday are they?

MB: never been on a board. don't know.
BC: the other problem is that JK told us there was no plan to discuss AB at board mtg. possible that you spoke to someone more senior and suggest that AB tweets be discussed?
MB: [laughs] no. I think board need to deal but JK I wouldn't do

that. I think I said to SK SW meeting monday. so far back I can only go back to try and place where that info came from. I wld not have asked. I wld remember if I'd spoken to HoC. they're not in chambers during day.
BC: another possibility. the clear fact you thought there was

a mtg on Mon. you may have spoken to MH?
MB: the person that I would likely have spoken to... Mia had responded re BSB email.... it wld have been someone in operations. quick call in car
EJ: didn't catch. someone in operations?
MB: operations
BC: qualified yes, you may have

spoken to MH?
MB: I cannot remember. could have been possibility. 3 min call.
BC: trying to square circle. is it poss if you spoke to MH, you said when is next board mgt mtg, you suggested discuss AB tweets.
MB: possible. can't remember. msg exchg SK SW reassured him HoC

were looking at it.
BC: gone as far as we can. P2028. main bundle. email from Ms Nash understood you had spoken to MH and DdM. she must be right?
MB: I think you're right. trying to retrace my steps. I was in chambers 17 Oct.

MB: I sent an email to MH, saying just tried to call you. 16 Oct MH sent email saying come speak to me when you can. so poss I spoke to MH. Open plan operations marketing. given Ms Nash email, I cld have spoken to MH. sorry can't remember. trying to trace emails

BC: Ms Nash goes on see below website P2029, one of your staff is spreading bigoted remarks re TW. weight of issue and general suggestion. your convo with MH and DdM was seeking to persuade them something to be done about AB tweets.
MB: they are not mgt. I could have done

MB: MH had copy of my 16 Oct email so sure AB tweets came up. what would I gain to persaude them of anything?
BC: Ms Nash public law policy in your team - clerk?
MB: yes, not primary clerk
BC: managed your pub law practice?
MB: Yes. not diary. speak ab practice reviews. not same

as clerk who ran my diary.
BC: fair you spoke to Ms Nash as well?
MB: no. I looked through emails couldn't find anything
BC: is reason you spoke to MH and DdM to persaude them to speak to HoC about AB tweets
MB: why would I do that. I sent my email.

BC: P62 you say you later sent specific tweets to DdM. you were pursuing issue with him weren't you?
MB: pause. can't remember. seems to me sensible if he heard me speaking... just speculating... bear in mind open plan... may have overheard me asking for policy. I went through

notes. not disclosed 17th Oct sent 1 screenshot from Stephen Whittle conference. inadvertent.
BC: before we look at your convo with SK SW. P1823 [whatsapp mssg from MB w tara hewitt] the first set of messages picking up convo already ongoing. awful comment's below, she's a

little obsessed"
MB: those screenshots included the morgan page tweet. the other screenshot I fwd
BC: msg 'Hi Michelle. WPUK event. thanks for letting me know" you are agreeing transphobic event?
MB: No. I'm saying WPUK considered transphobic. not saying transphobic

MB: I was experiencing trepidation what might emerge from WPUK event
BC: you initiate 3rd Whastapps exch. "I've raised with HoC. that shld not stop you raising too. Make formal complaint to HoC" if as you suggest your sole objective was to reassure Ms Hewitt being addressed

you encourage her to make a formal complaint and tell her how to do it.
MB:see in context. she is TW. sends me Morgan Page tweet. really upset. I'm saying if you want to make a complaint you're able to. nothing wrong with that. she'd already contacted me. really upset. if I was

wanting to encourage her, I would have prompted have you complained yet. didnt' do that.
BC: 23 Oct. MB to SL. SL tells you ppl going mental LGBA launch. at the end of the messages you say put in material to board, any chance send to me to fwd on. you were building case?

MB: if that was right it wouldn't have ended there would it?
BC: 24 Oct DR emailed you about member of chambers. tells you concerned overheard phone convo. you understood this was AB?
MB: yes I understood it was AB. the fact DR went to SL and SL suggested speak to me

made me think it was about AB. everything had been disclosed. no whispering
BC: you made it clear you were pursuing concerns about AB tweets
MB: yes I told 3 people SSH, SL and ? I refered to Morgan Page tweet and sent email to HoC. plain what my concerns were

BC: you msg DR, Hi David it might be....you were encouraging him to take action against AB weren't you?
MB: I would rather not be conduit for concerns about AB. not nice position. if DR had concerns what am I going to do. barely know DR. if he has issue. DR take it up with HoC.

I did that. if DR have problem take it up. he didn't do that.
BC:P2238 25 Oct Email exch Jay Stewart gendered intelligence. he emailed you 'this is a bit of a worry, link to AB profile'. you replied 'now subject for internal complaints process and board meeting on Mon"

BC: P626 Email from JK to you and others 24 Oct. by this time you had been told MH would collate tweets over weekend for mtg on Mon. so that is what you refer to in email to Jay Steward Gendered Intelligence. back to P2238. you were passing on info to encourage GI to complain

MB: no. issues already in public domain. I had msg DdM whether statement had been put up. I conveyed what was in public domain. didn't tell Jay to put in complaint
BC: P793 tweet by Gendered Intelligence ' we would encourage everyone to write about the barrister in question'

did you encourage gendered intelligence to do this?
MB: no. responsive tweet 24 Oct by GCC 'following complaints process, BSB'. I'm not on twitter. didn't speak to gendered intelligence
EJ: 5 min break 12:03

Back
EJ: waiting to see if panel are here. we do. carry on
BC: to go SW witness statement bundle. P17

BC: SK witness statement on that call Oct 2019, MB said AB posting anti-trans statement on twitter. you told SK thta GCC investigating didn't you
MB: what I said to SK, was bc of AB tweets and he was v concerned. I said I raised concerns. he mentioned AB tweets first. someone

contacted him. that's why he called me. I said raised concerns, looking at it on Mon.

BC: P3847 main bundle final page of minutes of that mtg. via MB GCC community encouraged to write to GCC about AB tweets. does not mention LGBA launch tweet. look at para 23 of your statement GCC bundle, the point you make there is besides the point. not suggested you knew

about AB LGBA launch tweet. go back to P3847, you encouraged ppl to write to GCC HoC didn't you
MB: no
BC: P1845 you knew from email exch here that ppl from SW attending roundtable.
MB: certainly on 1 Oct 2019. I don't know how much attention. lots of ppl ccd into email

BC: in email at bottom. there are a no. of references re your intention to get in touch with SW. Whatsapp with Ms Hewitt. look at 6 entry you say 'speak to SW tomorrow'. if you look at P961 you said to mr clark and SL you will be in touch with SW Mon. so you were intending to

MB: yes that's what I was planning
BC: did you draw to SW attention
MB: I was furious ab Morgan Page tweet. I was going to speak to SW. but I didn't do it. I sent email as I needed guidance, BSB etc. I didn't contact stonewall about any of this
BC: P962 EMail btw MB Shu Shin 22

you say damage limit on Mon
MB: yes in my mind. Morgan Page. damage to SW. my reaction when I sent to friends. I accept I said I would do it. but didn't do it.

BC: sufficient to ask SK to raise at roundtable
MB: SK was upset ab rountable at chambers associated with AB. my advice to him was IF participants raise it there is a complaints mechanism in chambers. that's what I did. nothing more

BC: you say to address concerns about meeting
MB: what SK said to me. expressed concerns that roundtable at chambers assc. with AB anti-trans tweeting. he was thinking participants wld question choice of venue. I said to him chambers has a complaints policy IF particpants raise i

BC: P23 your witness statement. SK asking for my advice and ressurance ab TON roundtable. I said there was a complaints mechanism. Ms B if SK was calling you about concerns to rt in chambers, signposting him to a process AFTER the event doesn't address those concerns does it?

MB: if not great advice, not great advice. 6 minute call. I gave him reassurance. said tweets would be looked at the monday. [raised voice]

BC: if reassurance for meeting, not just bad advice, pointless advice. you could say put in touch with MH. or claimant not in room or not in chambers.
MB: hindsight great thing. 6 min convo. i was in car. he was really stressed. maybe you're right. i was responding.

MB: his explicit thing was 'what do I do IF participants raise concerns about AB tweets and mtg in chambers' can't separate the two. you might advise differently
BC: para 80 of your wit stat P19. SK was worried that participants object to venue. SK was organising rt he asked for

BC: why not advise what to do at the mtg?
MB: concern was AB assc. with chambers.
BC: P2136 main bundle. you said 'how did it go yesterday' you wanted to know what was said ab AB
MB: no. SK is an anxious person. I was asking how did it go and he was really stressed out

BC: P2138 SK responds to you I will put followup actions, take couple of weeks "24 Oct 2019 WhatsApp msg from SK to MB “I did bring up briefly the issue with the terfy barrister and asked people to support and write to head of GC"

MB: how I analyse whilst on holiday not sure. he said sorry for pestering you
BC: you didn't say 'I wasn't encouraging you to write to GCC"
MB: [raised voice] it was a text msg. I was on holiday with my kids. didn't forensically examine. I don't know how much thought I gave it

BC: terfy barrister. not a term you use?
MB: I don't use it, clear GC feminists find it offensive. do my best not to use
BC: P963 in an exchange with Shin Lu you describe it as an acronym that's derogatory.
MB: got to err on the side of caution. I don't use it

BC: you know it's often used in conjunction with abusive rhetoric
MB: I know now. that it's used with horrific language. whether I knew then can't say I knew. right to say I understood that GC found it derogatory

BC: the way SK uses it is derogatory isn't it?
MB: the difficulty is, it started out as a neutral term and seems to have morphed into appalling language. in 2016 people would use that term. I can only talk about trans ppl I work with, they don't use it like that. it's

similar to 'male bodied persons'.
BC: turning it into that adjective is derogragory
MB: why I didn't call him out on it I can't say
EJ: near the end?
BC: yes. it does the reflect eh view that SK think AB's views transphobic
MB: don't know. I was on holiday. I wouldn't use TERF

BC: I suggest that you were agitating for complaints to be sent to the HoC to put pressure on them to take action against the claimant
MB: only msg I sent was email 16 Oct. not agitating. nothing to do with responsive tweets. don't believe

BC: it reflects reality that there's widespread discussion in chambers
MB: layout of chambers open plan rabbit warren. ppl busy practices. other than what's disclosed not hot topic of convo in chambers

BC: in dec 2019 you replied in strong terms about the SW association didn't you
MB: fair to say yes.
BC: you knew GC fems see self-id as extreme
MG: I hadn't heard term trans extremism before. concerned with that word. wasn't sure what she meant by it. lets be clear my concern

saying stonewall complicit in a campaign of harassment intimidation and threats
BC: you know position SW taken on self id legitimises abuse GC ppl get - didn't you?
MB: didn't see coverage saying SW complicit, not passive, complicit. I made clear. I said "

"I do not for on minute support any abuse from any quarter of the type you set out below and will and do condemn it in the strongest terms"
BC: and 'no debate'?
MB: no bearing on what I'm doing
BC: slogan of 'no debate' is shutting down abusive ppl who dare to debate that?

MB:unpack that
BC: ...
AH:interrupts - Dec 2018?
BC: legitimises abuse GC people get doesn't it?
MB: stretch to say complicit in violence b/c slogan 'no debate'. allegation was "complicit in a campaign of harassment intimidation and threats to gender critical feminists" unstubs

unsubstantiated. allegation to 200 human rights lawyers.
BC: you sent clear slapdown to AB to everyone in chambers.
MB: she sent a reply all to SL email P1069 [Email from SL to all – Dec 2018]. [Email from AB to all – Dec 2018] She talks about fascistic tactics. not on.

MB: did it generate any furore? no. most didn't read. Christmas.
BC: you discussed with HoC, senior ppl and clerks
MB: no
BC: you said transphobic, should not be said
MB. no I sent email to SL that's it

MB: it's absurd.
BC: you were never going to tolerate AB in chambers after that
MB: we're 200 ppl. ppl got on with their biz. you just get on with it. 16 Oct I sent email asking for guidance
BC: thank you. those are all my questions
EJ? Ms O?

IO: Good afternoon Ms B
MB: GA
IO: questions about your interactions with SW. your wit stat in GCC bundle. P7, para 30 under my instructions from SW and other contact. you set out occasions on which you carried out work for SW. first pro bono in relation to GRA?

MB: yes
IO: you were invited to roundtable with EHRC?
MB: sorry I think 2nd was EHRC guidance
IO: in relation to pro bono did that involve you in any contact with SW DC scheme?
MB: no

IO: look at your 2018 pro bono work - just you?
MB: and L Gillick
IO: EA work?
MB: y
IO: touch on SW DC?
MB: No?
BC: sorry to interrupt Mr Daly kicked out of room with blank screen.

EJ: disconnect, reconnect. MB you are disconcerted by IO frozen small screen?
IO: apologies can't see if I'm frozen or not
EJ:it's ok MB not disconcerted
IO: your work 2018, you did not do any further work until the invite to attend the GRA parliamentary statutory mtg?

MB: y
IO: your email to Mr Twocock
MB: met him once. from Jan 2019 email exch didn't hear anything further
IO: heard questions ab strategic litigation partnership. were you ever involved in this?
MB: no

IO: Q about GRA GRA parliamentary statutory mtg P1425. meeting with EHRC. request for availability. Mr Santos telling you should have recieved link in email to join the Wall. did you have access to SW intranet known as the Wall.
MB: i see email with a link. but I only saw April

this year, never accessed.
IO: P1247 'Hi everyone' email for attendeess for EHRC meeting. P1246. you said you couldn't use the link?
MB: that's right
IO: and followup email 'Hi michele you can use the platform for the dates'
MB: never used it.

IO: were you aware of subsets giving access to Stonewall intranet?
MB: not aware but not surprised. SW work with lots of orgs
IO: SK gave evidence STAG wall. part of the wall exclusively for STAG grp members. did you access?
MB: no. no clue about STAG

IO: when you set out your dealing with SK what capacity?
MB: LGBT consortium. SK always signed emails that way
IO: Q about others. KM employee - any dealings?
MB: No. no communications
IO: MS Al Farabi client acc mgr for SW DC. any dealings?
MB: no never

IO: any involvement SW DC programme?
MB: no. no dealings
IO: no other questions
EJ: I have no questions. Panel? no Qs. Mr H?
AH: P1072 14 Dec email exch. email from AB to SL. did you ever receive suggestions for a way forward?
MB: no

AH: want to put detriment clearly. P170 please. detriment 1 - work withheld from AB to cause financial loss. para 4. you are one of the ppl named to have given directions to Colin Cook or exercised influence to wit-hold work
MB: not true. ridiculous
AH: did you have any convo wi

clerks?
MB: no
AH: look at TRWG end of your email "I am going to ask Dan to set up a chambers email group, so email and I will move on to organising the training session" are you aware how many members of email group?

MB: no
AH: did you ask TRWG members to speak to GCC officially?
MB: no
AH:P272 responsive tweet as it's been called. you've told us you're not involved. but it says you, Lousie hooper and Tom did it on behalf of TRWG
MB: ridiculous
AHP175 para 23 read to yourself

AH: is that an accurate description of this group?
MB: no. wildly inaccurate
AH: TRWG led to responsive tweet
MB: no
AH: how did you know GCC HoC board mtg on monday, let me show 2 docs. P243 comm btw MH and HoC 24 Oct 12:52, MH says 'Hi, yes I have 3" reference to 3 complaints.

this was another issue for MB on Mon. could MH have spoken to you?
MB: can't remember sorry
AH: end of suppl bundle come through this morning. attachment to doc
EJ: time sent?
AH:
IO: 10:45
AH: sent by Laura
EJ: got it

Clerk: I've forwarded it on
EJ: Thank you. just get it up. pause while it loads.
AH: last attachment. helpful for tribunal to have copy of authority while looking at it
EJ: Oh I see. question?
AH: want to put 3 para to MB. do you ave that up?
MB: I don't have it up

AH: 2021EWHC1646 admin
MB: give me 2 mins

EJ: for observers, Bailey is not claimant but judgement
AH: Look at judgement of jsutice Holroy. challenge policies prison estate, opposite gender assigned at birth, convicted of violent sexual offences ag women. look at para 12, no. of known TW in women's estate small, may be mo

more. data elusive. not least bc of TW who've obtained GRC. data lacked clarity. prisoners convicted sexual offences - serving for currently or who committed before. were you aware of those issues?
MB: concerns ab stats yes
AH: Para 45, now in judgement of Justice Swift para 103

EJ: can't find
AH: P75, para 103, Mr justice Swifts judgement. just look at that and I'll highlight a passage
MB: yes I'll refresh my memory
AH: another issue inaccurate info on no. of TW prisoners
MB: yes. particu those with GRC. justice concerned ab that

AH: what do you say one gets from this authority?
MB: have to be careful when you paint TW as sex offenders, that statistical evidence is unreliable. it's patently obvious. if you have class of ppl who suffer discrimination and you paint as predatory, unreliable evidence, dan

dangerous path to take
AH: that ends my questions
EJ: thank you. disconnect hearing. resume at 2pm. last witness Ms Harrison

@threadreaderapp please unroll