Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Welcome to Day 2 of the case of Bernard Randall vs Trent College where BR will continue giving evidence. 10am start.

Catch up with yesterday here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1567461…

For info about the case, visit our substack:

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/bernard-rand…

Abbreviations:
BR - Bernard Randall

TC - Trent College

RO - Richard O’Dair, barrister for BR

PW - Paul Wilson, barrister for TC

EJ - Employment Judge

Panel - other members of the tribunal

E&C - Educate & Celebrate, providers of diversity and inclusion training to schools, also an ‘awards scheme’ for participating schools.

PC - Protected Characteristic

While we are waiting to begin, please note the tribunal is underway at Midlands East Employment Tribunal where @tribunal tweets has remote access and permission to live tweet. #OpenJustice

@Tribunal We begin.

The clerk is asking if he can be heard, questioning who an attendee is, and and if mics can be muted while others are admitted.

@Tribunal EJ: have a couple of administrative matters before we start.

(The sound is not great so please bear with us)
The tribunal is getting a lot of correspondence about live streaming and taking up a lot of time.

EJ: We remind all corresponding to be courteous, in particular threats to interrupt are entirely unacceptable, that was an email we had yesterday.

RO: we have been asked by BBC for...(missed)
EJ: already this is taking up time. All these additional arrangements, we're happy to, but will do within rules and powers and if detracting from case we will bring live stream and requests to a close. Make app.

RO: we have been asked by BBC for witness statement...I make the app on this basis that the principle governing hearing in the tribunal is article 20, the open justice principle and that express provision of the rules and the guidance of the president on this subject,

RO: are subject to article 10. The right of the press and public to know about proceedings
EJ: where's deregation when WS are here? Is this a Q of convenience then not a compelling argument.
RO: tribunal must maximise the open justice

RO: I'll cont my app. The press have obligation to make fair and accurate report of proceedings and much more difficult if they don't have the WS to hand when they sit down and compose their report.

RO: it's public interest to know what has been said to fullest possible extent. Therefore that principle is facilitated if app I've made are granted. Real Q, given article 10 is why they should NOT be granted. What is the prejudice to the justice principle?

RO: no doubt my learned friend will have something to be say but what could be said is some concern about discomfort to members of staff
EJ: which staff
RO: respondents. But that is a matter which comes within the purview of rule 50 of tribunal rules.

RO: you'll know Rule 52, trib may prevent disclosure...however the convention rights of other ppl are usually dealt with by making restrictive reporting order, no such app has been made by respondents.

RO: Therefore the poss objection is not being pursued and would be less restricted way of pursuing. I make order as instructed. Open justice is treasured principle of our courts. The press are key to that and will facilitate work of press if they have a copy of claimants WS

RO: that's the starting point in article 10 and if denied there need justification. I don't see there is any such. Thank you madam
EJ: few points. In terms of open justice what makes this case unique in restrictions when principle is contained in the room

EJ: in terms of accurate reporting how can that happen with just WS?
RO: the case is special because unprecedented interest in case, and the issues to which it gives rise. That a Christian sermon gives rise to Prevent order and public rightly interested

RO: Re 2nd Q, until recently WS were read our, under that it would be possible for shorthand writer to note down. No objection to verbatim account and in my sub that's the key point. That torcherous process is no longer followed.
EJ: it's in our powers as to being read out

RO: but rarely done
EJ: but we can
RO: would be inefficient, would be much better to hand the WS out. 2nd thing, what about respondents WS? First that objection never could lead to the restriction of the old regime as read out. Same problem would exist there.

RO: secondly the press have an obligation to provide fair and accurate reports.
EJ: but how do u strike that balance with just claimant's WS? You can see my point
RO: entirely yes. If the press had done shorthand verbatim they would of course say evidence in chief.

RO: Provided they said that
EJ: we can't make them
RO: they have great incentive to do that. If they're published, we'd make it abundantly clear this only 'half' time to coin a phrase.
EJ: you sent them?
RO: yes I don't need to disclose them

EJ: yes I was just asking
PW: do the press have access to the doc...I'm struggling to say why they don't have that...(missed) there are people who act in a partisan way and the school has to be on its guard to people who take part in partisan reporting

PW: are the facilities provided adequate for the press and I fail to see why they aren't. Just been handed a note...perhaps it's the way RO criticised it. The fundamental concern is pupils in the school..builds a level of pressure on the school. Not creating a level playing field

PW: those are my subs and we leave the difficult decision to tribunal.
WJ: in context of last point, if we were to allow, any issue with arricle 50
PW: I'd need to take instruction. Names already out there in press. The staff that are witnesses have unhappily become accustomed

PW: The school must take utmost care when it comes to child safeguarding.

PW: can I take instruction for 5 mins?
EJ: I suspect this will take most of morning. We'll adjourn to get instructions.
RO: saying this is a safeguarding risk to the children seems an astonishing step to take to me.

EJ: you need 10 mins
Voice: I'm from the BBC wondering if it'd be helpful for me...
EH: yes we're adjourning for 10 mins
BR: it seems RO is now repping BBC and I have no rep. Am I allowed to instruct on this?
PW: no objection

EJ: go back to designated waiting rooms and we'll ask clerk to fetch you. Take all electronic equipment.
(They all leave)

We will be back when tribunal is back in session.

We are back.

PW: thanks for the time and I'm not adding to my subs. I can't add to them
EJ: any subs from claimant?
RO: one thing, press are not just requesting BR Witness statement access

EJ: and that's with view to publish online
RO: reflecting they wouldn't publish wholesale they'd take them away and use for accuracy

EJ: so NOT to publish?
RO: yes NOT to publish.
EJ: anything further
PW: no
EJ: in context of taking away and not publishing, what steps are there to prevent being published?
RO: u could make an order to that affect that press are bound to obey

RO: the tribunal should assume orders will be obeyed.
EJ: (pause)

EJ: we've not had an email yet confirming instructions
RO: sorry
EJ: well keep an eye out for that.
We'll have to go back to waiting rooms then and you'll be fetched back

(Someone asks if they can get coffee over the road in that time, wasn't clear who. They all leave)

(The court has been adjourned for at least 30 mins to decide on the BBC application. We will resume when the tribunal does. Stay tuned)

We are back.

EJ: OK we considered the app and in doing so, re rule 44 of employment rules and WS, subject to 50 and 95 [Reads 'WS should be available for those attending...'] and all docs are used only for hearing unless tribunal rules otherwise.

EJ: The docs must not be used for anything other than conduct of case because public hearing, trib will allow public and press to view. Also looked at remote hearings guidance looking at WS.

EJ: The measure suggested was public or press wanting to view docs, can be uploaded to password protected website. Subject not to copy or distribute. All those provisions remain for course of hearing and nothing incompatible with article 10.

EJ: It's article 6 that applies here, Freedom Of Expression. At this stage, the claimant's evidence and witnesses are untested and shouldn't be put in public domain. Measure in place for accurate reporting. Made WS available so measures are there.

EJ: Once hearing is complete, those proceedings no longer continue and what happens after is beyond our control. ET rules apply therefore app for WS in public domain is refused.

EJ: We need to progress. We'll take early lunch and begin 1.45. BR you are under oath and we will proceed with evidence then.
RO: will we get these in writing?
EJ: of course.

[Adjourned until 1 45 where BR will continue his evidence]

@threadreaderapp pls unroll