Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon and welcome to DAY 3 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales. We expect witnesses from the defendent to be cross examined this afternoon.
2pm start

Catch up with coverage so far:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/shahrar-ali-…

We are reporting in person from Mayor's and City of London Court.
As reported yesterday, the acoustics of the courtroom are challenging so please this in mind if the reporting seems disjointed at times.

Abbreviations

J - Judge Hellman, presiding

SA - Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ Jeffrey Jupp, barrister
EM Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor, Didlaw

GPEW – Green Party of England & Wales, defendant, represented by Elizabeth Reason and Jon Nott
CC - Catherine Casserley, barrister
MJ - Mindy Jhittay, solicitor, Bates Wells

Witnesses
JL Julia Lagoutte, GPEW officer 2020-2023
ZH Cllr Zoe Hatch, GPEW officer 2021-2022
RN Rashid Nix, GPEW officer 2019-2023

Witnesses
MC - Mary Clegg, GPEW CEO
MSC - Molly Scott Cato, GPEW External Communications Coordinator
ER - Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022
JB - Jonathan Bartley, Co-Leader GPEW, 2016-2021

GPX - Green Party Executive
YG - Young Greens
SG - Scottish Greens
GC - Gender Critical
SSMG - Spokesperson Monitoring Group
COC - code of conduct

[We begin]
JJ: the document has been agreed to go into the supplementary bundle.
J: yes
CC: can I call Mary Clegg (MC)

[MC is affirmed]
J: thank u. Please sit down.
CC: pls locate bundle 1 of core bundle and page 178. [Confirms name and address]

CC: turn to last page of ur witness statement. Is that ur signature and contents true?
MC: yes
JJ: miss or miss clegg?
MC: Ms
JJ: are u the point of contact between lawyers and GP?
MC: yes
JJ: request made by SA solicitors to preserve all docs including list of names ( lists)

JJ: GP said well aware had to provide documents. Discovered this year there were no WhatsApp messages. Go to 3751. Second para saying u have no control over members of GP including text messages and WhatsApp chat. Go back a few pages to 3746.

JJ: this is original request from solicitors acting on behalf of SA.
[Bundle confusion)
Can I ask to rise for 2 minutes
J: while rising I'll put these docs in the right file. I'm risen but sorting these out.

JJ: we were talking about disclosure of WhatsApp messages and ur solicitors explained they'd made a request for personal devices but didn't get any. This is a letter from SA solicitor. We can take it that apart

from those disclosed, all others on list, matt brown, sian Berry refused
MC: the request was made and what we have u have received
JJ: Sian Berry is MP and SA says she discriminated against him on his protected belief. She is not here.any reason why?

MC: didn't know that would be asked
JJ: or matt brown
MC: no
JJ: this is a doc of the constitution of ur party [reads] is that correct?
MC: yes
J: the most recent in autumn 2021
JJ: this clause hasn't changed?
MC: don't believe so
J: can I get the clause
[JJ reads]

JJ: u have GP members of all religions?
MC: I believe so we don't survey
JJ: u don't have a rule that if ppl have perhaps a right wing or free market view how to achieve ur aims as opposed to socialist views to achieve aims?

MC: if you were to look youd see
JJ: u don't have a rule that ppl with GC beliefs can't join?
MC: no
JJ: or trans ppl?
MC: no
JJ: if a person is a member of ur party there's no rule that stops them being promoted to possible post

MC: they are required to follow code of conduct and any rules applied to that position.
JJ: u sent a briefing note out to GPX on Equality Act. Look through that u dealt with a section in there dealing with agency and equality act. You

read the Equality of Human rights report. U carried out an exercise cross referencing ur parties posts.
Let's see if we can reach agreement on at least some of agency...
J: before I don't know if fair to put to witness

JJ: may be some assistance as to how it was reached. U accept GPX are agents of party
MC: when acting in scope of their authority
JJ: assuming they're acting in scope of authority, what about party leaders?
MC: that's the conclusion I reached

JJ: spokespeople?
MC: haven't thought about that
JJ: u said SA didn't have exclusive authority. U don't think young people to be agents of the party?
MC: tried to create discussion with GPX about that
JJ: dealing with Young Greens here.

JJ: left hand column, para 2, says [reads] and also if one looks at 1423 this is the constitution itself not bylaws. [Reads 'co chairs of YG'] Look at YG constitution

JJ: article 4 deals with membership. Membership is amde up of all parties of GP aged 29 or less. If a person that age joins they'll join GP
MC: they'll have membership of YG and GP
J: so joint
JJ: how many are in YG?
MC: no idea

JJ: the YG have an exec committee that organises YG business. They assist GP. You're a political party and aim is to get ppl elected. To do that u need young volunteers to deliver leaflets.
MC: yes
JJ: and they do so on behalf of GP. YG don't stand candidates?

MC: might seek support
JJ: young greens don't feature on the ballot.
MC: no
JJ: so when they go canvassing they're doing it for GP candidate.
MC: yes
JJ: they don't say they're young greens on doorstep they say they're from GP

MC: I don't stand next to them
JJ: it's well known if a by election where GP stand chance of success, swathes of young greens support GP candidates. That needs ro be organised.
MC: yes
JJ: let's look at local parties

JJ: very first bylaw deals with position of local parties. Local parties are a constituent part of GP. GP is made up of local parties isn't it?
MC: it is
JJ: those candidates have to be member of a local party. U can't be a candidate unless you are?

MC: yes
JJ: local parties get funded by a central grant by GPEW
MC: gives membership to local party first. Central grant gives money back which is theirs already
JJ: not quite right as it has control over how much it gives. Some money is taken and distributed in equitable way.

MC: starts at a local level
JJ: GP collects data on all its members. GP can wind up local parties.
(Missed)
JJ: moving on to special interest groups (SIG)

JJ: again they have exec committees
MC: yes
JJ: they elect their committees
MC: they have to
JJ: they run campaigns
MC: like
JJ: can get a group of LGBT young greens and other groups. They operate under GP banner
MC: mostly have their own label

JJ: but affiliated to GP
MC: subset of members
JJ: that deals with that.

JJ: this is MSC document. What she's done in that table is allocate the spokesperson role to equivalent role at government level. She makes the point we choose roles rather than existing cabinet roles.

Essentially saying our priorities are so forth. It covers migration and support.
MC: erm yes
JJ: I take it from ur response ur not the best person to ask
MC: probably

JJ: can u accept that was within SA influences as a speaker. Its fairly obvious it was in his area
MC: can u clarify?
JJ: it was within his area?
MC: yes
JJ: did u play any part in organising that event?
MC: no
JJ: who did?

MC: assume liason team
JJ: were u involved in any press with that?
MC: not hands on with press
JJ: you've taken info from doc you've read
MC: yes and why they were asked to be there

JJ: but you don't know because u weren't involved in that decision
MC: involved on a weekly basis of who was getting on
JJ: SA is policing spokesperson and he's not invited. Your case is he wasn't invited as he wasn't a parliamentarian. There must have

been organisation of that event, u accept?
MC: yes
JJ: about who should go
MC: yes
JJ: and we haven't seen any evidence of that
MC: we have weekly meetings
JJ: are minutes kept?
MC: no

J: who would be present?
MC: (lists)
JJ: what was Zack Polanski role at that point
MC: good question
JJ: he wasn't leader at the time. Who would have decided they didn't want aspokesperson at that?

MC: don't think that decision was made, we were deciding for the coming week.

(Technical difficulties. Discussion about SA asking who made decision)
JJ: someone made the decision and we say to u and witnesses this was a conscious decision not to put SA at forefront of that event

MC: I don't see any evidence of that
JJ: there's no evidence of that. U come along and tell us a weekly meeting and not in ur statement. Provided no whatsapp msgs, emails, nothing at all about this meeting. Moving on.

JJ: SA wanted the request campaign on antisemitism accurate and stated and recorded correctly

JJ: now move to complaint process in your WS. As u say there's referral groups. If a member complains about another member they fill out a form and send it to disciplinary group?

MC: yes
JJ: then the group can dismiss or refer
MC: can refer to (lists)
JJ: thisnis the standing orders for discipline. [Reads]
MC: this is more recent copy
JJ: that's quite important. Do u know when change was?
JJ: I'll work with this version but good if we can see earlier one

JJ: once a member is referred internally, [reads] its not dealt with by a disciplinary process but dealt with by other governing body. Its not dismissed.
MC: it ceases to be a complaint
JJ: that wasn't my question. It's not dismissed is it?

MC: no
JJ: something happened completely contrary to that policy. People made a complaint in normal way, were dismissed and those ppl were then told to contact SSMG
MC: take me to that
JJ: u don't accept that?
[MC finding it in bundle]

[JJ takes MC through bundle to the info]

JJ: this is a complaint by a man called Alexander Catt. That complaint is dismissed and we see descriptor [reads]. That's not the only thing that happened. Complaint by Daryl Hobb, same thing happened in Jan 2022.

Tim Knight, dismissed, contact SSMG. Last two complainants precisely same thing happened. The vonplaint process isn't operating as it should in case of SA.
MC: rephrase question
JJ: they shouldn't be referred to anyone else should they

MC: I can't speak about what happened here. Its too long ago to know
JJ: u have a role in complaint process
MC: I did have, don't anymore
JJ: SA wasn't informed of complaint or substance or referral to SSMG. That didn't happen did it?

MC: if you say that then I believe u.
JJ: u were in court yesterday. SA said he had to remake several complaints. Do u accept?
MC: no, SA hasn't been treated differently

JJ: not claiming that. Relevant to ur analysis which we suggest wasn't accurate. Reason is bc as he explained, he puts in compliant and then had to put in again and that leads to double counting.
I'll not take you through all but here's an example
[JJ takes MC through]

JJ: you're showing in ur WS how many complaints he's brought in.
MC: yes
JJ: you've duplicated and makes it look like many more than there is
MC: I don't agree
JJ: I've just shown you
MC: don't know why he had to resubmit

JJ: by your analysis he's making more complaints than he is
MC: I'll take u back to the table
JJ: I'll not go over it again
J: I got the point
JJ: u deal with the complaint but completely silent about complaints

made about him. U felt the need to do first section but not second
MC: because we're discussing SA
JJ: more importantly where those complaints are matters relating to his beliefs, accusations of transphobia, every single conaint brought by trans rights activist has been dismissed

That right?
MC: if you say so.
JJ: if I'm wrong about that your counsel can respond. In relation to complaints what role do u play in notifying other ppl about their complaints.
MC: repeat the question
[Does so]

JJ: u keep the complaints confidential don't u?
MC: yes
JJ: in summer jonathan resigned as leader. There's no dispute in 3rd para Sian Berry was talking about SA?
MC: I can't answer that
JJ: but I can't.

JJ: so I'm asking you.
J: She's responded she doesnt know. JJ: As chief exec u obvs communicated with sian Berry (SB) as to what she was going to do?
MC: I was waiting to hear
(Missed)

JJ: go to doc,
MC: must have had a convo but can't remember exactly what happened.
JJ: did u have email or WhatsApp comms with SB?
MC: don't remember

[Moving to doc]
JJ: over thr page are the notes of a disciplinary meeting of Jan 10th this year. Respondent was SB. The complaint was about the press releasE we've just looked at. SB says [reads 'she said easier to step aside and

discussed with committee and comms team how to do it'] Did she discuss with you how she was going to do it?
MC: I was shown a statement. Just on a screen, no copy

JJ: SA name was on the statement and MSC advised it should be removed and you removed it.
MC: I don't recollect that.
J: u dont remember?
MC: no. It was a fraught situation.
JJ: Why?

MC: having a leader decide not to stand wasn't an easy convo.
JJ: the discussion of Gc and trans - you described it as existential crisis
MC: it was described like that.

(Missed)
JJ: I suggest you were shown it before date said. Did u make written representations to SB that it was not appropriate?
MC: no
JJ: never occurred to me

JJ: u said it was a fraught meeting. U obvs weren't happy about statement she was intending to put out. U could have written and said it wasn't on?
MC: no
JJ: u said SB made it clear on producing personal statement. Can u say where that is?
[MC looking]

MC: it was personal statement as it was put on her website.
JJ: she sent out with GP logo
MC: not sure what that is
JJ: she was leader at the time
MC: acting leader
JJ: she's engaging in political debate about the party
MC: don't think so

JJ: she's talking about underlying party policy as she sees it
MC: she's talking about her feelings towards party policy
JJ: only person who can answer if this was personal statement is her isn't it?
MC: yes
JJ: I'd suggest this was extremely decisive to send wasn't it?

MC: it's was SB statement, was for her to decide
JJ: you've got familiarity with disciplinary process and members have a code of conduct
MC: yes

JJ: [reads] I'm going to invite the court to draw inferences that that statement was for SA. I'd suggest she was in reach of those codes. Would u agree?
MC: (pause)
JJ: let me put another way, did u say look SB if u do that it's likely there'll be a complaint and against COC

JJ: no record of that. Why were no notes taken here?
MC: bc it was an informal conversation. Sharing something they intend to do. Sian, Gemma as head of comms, can't remember who else.

JJ: she then went on to give an interview with Open Democracy as party leader
MC: not my understanding
JJ: she's doesn't make it clear it's a personal statement does she?

JJ: because she wanted it to carry the authority of acting leader
MC: no it says she's stepped down as first part of article.
J: We will break and come back at 3.55

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll