Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to DAY 4 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales (GPEW). We expect more witnesses from the GPEW to be cross examined this morning.
10am 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 previously reported, 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

[COURT IN SESSION]

J: Good morning CC
CC: Good morning. Before I call up MSC, I just want to bring up redacted doc. It's been put in bundle.
J: Thank you

CC: thank you. Can I call Molly Scott Cato (MSC) please?

[MSC is affirmed and confirms her name, address and signature on witness statement]

Is there anything you'd like to correct?
MSC: is this where I make a correction
CC: if you wish to.
[MSC corrects WS]

CC: do you recognise that as ur 2nd WS?
MSC: yes
[MSC confirms sig and whether contents true]
J: just before we go further, the acoustics aren't great so please speak up so everyone can hear

JJ: MSC at the end of e0e0, SA was home affairs spokesperson, right?
MSC: I wasn't responsible for spokespeople then
JJ: his views of gender critical were known?
MSC: I was more concerned with Palestinian views but his GC views were known.

JJ: this is a WhatsApp series of exchanges between u and SA. He sends u something set out in detail. Talks about SA as well known figure in GP and so on and while he and SB aren't close friends [reads 'SA isn't everyone's cup of herbal tea...' 'he has

view noone can change identity']
Point I'm asking is his views has come known outside party then
MSC: don't dispute ppl knew he had gc views
JJ: after ur app at comms coordinator, turn .

JJ: you set out a table and above that u set out commentary making it clear u choose the roles that affect GP. We see from roles themselves.
MSC: our policy is that we would divide home office so one would deal with migration and other with

prisons. This reflects that.
JJ: this illuminates 2nd point.this portfolio contains home office areas but as u say policy is to be split. The policing and domestic safety speaker would cover things like criminal justice?
MSC: yes

JJ: corruption, racism in police, prisons, issues affecting domestic violence, LGBT hate crime, misogyny.
MSC: yes
JJ: That was ur plan. There was GPX meeting on 16th Dec. U presented ur plan. As far as u were concerned u were to go ahead to appoint

spokesperson.
MDC: we should acknowledge initial plan.
JJ: following that meeting u advertised for new speakers?
MSC: yes
JJ: u also approached existing speakers to reapply?
MSC: yes

JJ: we see comms from GP to SA [read 'please consider to apply'] You give him a nudge?
MSC: yes
JJ: [onto another doc, reads 'have you applied']. You were friends at this point, no dispute about that. Between that date and when list agreed in March,

SA had done several things, he raised emergency conference?
MSC: don't recall
JJ: end result is by time end of march, ur colleagues have approved a list of speakers
[JJ checking bundle]

JJ: if we agree as of march the speaker list was approved
MSC: I don't see that in para 15
JJ: turn to 341. In there there's an email from Feb 15. Last line u say [reads 'can 4 others please respond']
MSC: yes

JJ: By then you say on March 6 [reads 'sign off on 4 out of 5'] Just to complete picture, at that stage you had not heard from Sahir Gérard (spelling unsure).
J: you're emailing Richard Maddon (spelling unsure)

MSC: I asked if he would convene a small group, that's reason for email
J: thanks
JJ: tell court who was in working group?
MSC: Britta, Richard, samar and amelia on behalf of leadership team.

JJ: we see 4 of 5 sign off but you'll see correspondence. [Reads 'didn't scrutinise before I signed off'] The next step was to move to speakers
MSC: can I comment on. So we had 5 person panel, important to note dates
J: speak up

MSC: this was taking place in first lockfown and ppl struggling with mental health. Amelia womankind was struggling quite a lot. Important as and when.

JJ: I haven't understood that and want to be clear. When I took u to email you said Samir Foraj
MSC: I don't think I said that
JJ: I think you did. Right let's take that as 6th March and think of GPX meeting in June. There was

spokesperson launch on 7th June. Park that and talk about the process. In your WS u say there was objections to para 50. [MSC looks up bundle] You say there were concerns raised [reads 'views contradiction to trans issues']. Now I'm going to ask u

3 or 4 direct questions, if u don't accept that I'll take u through it all. The process was reopened?
MSC: when do u say that?
JJ: by time of JUne...
MsC: ..I'd say process was challenged
JJ: challenge led by SB, Amelia and Matt brown

MSC: wasn't watching that the time but if it was in WhatsApp msgs I'll accept
JJ: do u accept reason around Berry, Womack were objecting to appointment bc they were objecting to SA views and expression of them
MSC: can't say other people's views

JJ: this is extract from leadership whatsapp group, sian Berry, womack, etc. She has been told who was on the list
MSC: that should not have happened
JJ: we know Mr Geraj had raised a complaint about process and he and SB were friends?
MSC: can't say

JJ: SB presses point u didn't have recorded decision makers meeting. We're u on call where she expressed concern?
MSC: no
JJ: JB then says spokespeople previously approved by GPX, he covers himself and says he wasn't

involved. As we heard yesterday there's no WhatsApp msgs from SB. She expressed concern about process then Amelia Womack (AW) who says not in a position to rake on MSC. SB is not massively sympathetic [reads 'just to confirm wasn't a vote]

That's what happened in March
MSC: I see pattern here
JJ: not saying u were trying to open your own process. We don't know what happened rest of march and April. At end of May ur starting to gear up for spokesperson
MSC: yes

JJ: you had issues with comms team?
(Missed)
MSC: trying to limit potential damage

(Moved on)
JJ: SB says she had a long chat with you and putting pressure on u about SA appointment?
MSC: can't remember
JJ: can't remember the thrust of convo?
MSC: it's over 2 years ago

JJ: AM says u should write email from 3 of us. On that point what she is considering there is if event in future that which there's a problem and party has to apologise for something spokesperson has said there'll be a statement put out.

MSC: never known that happen. Highly unlikely
JJ: she asked for process to be paused the [reads 'rather than being about specific person'] They're looking for ways to disguise attack on SA?
MSC: difficult to judge people's motives

JJ: problem is the decision makers, the GP recalled 4 witnesses and I'm having to use this process what they did. U my not be able to answer but I can see how it progressed

[Missed]

MSC: what I see is the frustration of leadership
JJ: what SA case is that they are trying to undermine ur decision bc of his beliefs. We then come to following day. [Reads from SB] Did you say 'look just deal with it and the comms risk to SB'?

MSC: don't think she says that
JJ: any recollection of that?
MSC: no
JJ: re tactics, [reads 'if I introduce topic, I basically said my piece to Molly'] What she's saying us when we have meeting with MSC they'll get back up. Did that happen?

[Exchange about previous response]
Then they tried to change ur mind, is that right?
MSC: might well be, memory not good.
JJ: then late in day on Friday, Kye Taylor emails GPX and raises constitutional point GPX haven't approved. U respond to that on Sat

morning. Final para says, basically get on with it. Then you take on Britta Goodman who asked on calm and support. Then next SA is named and u make the point he's entitled to fair treatment and received 25% votes.

This is all happening Friday, sat and sun leading up to speakers launch on Monday.
MSC: believe it was Saturday
JJ: Monday 7th
MSC: OK
JJ: Rosie Raw enters scene, co leader YG. She talks about vetting process

and clearly not supportive. Then Kye Taylor (KT) on Sunday eve [reads 'hope launch can be delayed'] Then before launch, you make the point [reads 'clashing different identity groups in party'] Around this time u had selected candidate of colour

from Batley and Spen and someone dug out homophobic msgs he'd send 10 years prev and he was dropped as candidate. [Reads] That's morning of launch, Matt brown half hour before launch...
CC: is there going to be a question
J: this is context

MSC: people concerned in this email chain weren't concerned with JB
JJ: you can see his name on it
MSC: doesn't concern him.
JJ: reason I did lengthy context. That was big event for party?
MSC: yes
JJ: u put together press briefing

JJ: I'm going to suggest that JB was under significant pressure from SB by time of launch
J: ur asking witness to express opinion, not fair
JJ: I suggest you're having ur ear bent of app of SA

MSC: no I was having ear bent about Carl Ross about Syria
JJ: it was noticeable and SA asked if everything was all right and u said 'you don't want to know'
MSC: no bc we didn't raise our voices
JJ: there was a tension in air about it

MSC: ppl there deeply offended by his communications.
JJ: photos were taken and video. They weren't pit out
MSC: SA views did undermine the launch and that was very disappointing

JJ: no group videos or speech by JB, none put out by press, nothing in press?
MSC: didn't get coverage we hoped for
JJ: it's ur role to make sure photos and vid is circulated as wide as possible

MSC: no its oversee comms, was my objective to get good splash, rather than day to day decisions about what's on social media channels
JJ: in another event of this kind, photos and vids would be put on social media (SM)

MSC: would have liked more press attention
JJ: someone decided NOT to send vids and photos?
MSC: journalists need to apply to use photos
JJ: that wasn't my question. U have insta, fb and twitter account and as much put on as possible

MSC: I'm external comms
JJ: focus on question. Uve been a member a long time. U receive bulletins of what's happening in party. Accept?
MSC: yes

JJ: in this case that didn't happen. Internal members didn't have vid or photos. Inst and FB didn't have that info. Any disput?
MSC: distinction between internal and external comms. I'm not responsible for the first.
JJ: someone decided not to put vids and photos?

MSC: yes
JJ: do u know who?
MSC: no
JJ: so we're left to draw inferences from that?
MSC: I can only say the truth

JJ: message here [reads 'give him ammunition']
MSC: I'm trying to damp down difficulties in the party
(Missed)
JJ: is is that u didn't want to have to deal with JB.
MSC: SA can be emotionally exhausting

JJ: you didn't want to say something that he could use and that thing was to tell him that JB was objecting to his app due to beliefs
MSC: defo not the case
MSC: more likely he'd have said u didn't make enough of my appointment.

JJ: moving on from launch. After launch, there was sustained abuse of SA on SM. We see raft of Tweets where he's singled out as transphobic
MSC: I reject ur characterisation of abuse, its exaggerated
JJ: well disagree on that. You've got 50K members & only small amount on twitter

MSC: don't know
JJ: the ppl on other side of debate are very vociferous
MSC: I'd say it's nature of Twitter to be divisive and both sides become very heated.
JJ: do u think its appropriate to call people transphobic when they're not transphobic.

MSc: shouldn't use that term, we don't have a party definition of term, and shouldn't use the term TERF
[Judge clrifies]
MSC: my position is that both terms are damaging and cause offence.

JJ: u say there's no definition of transphobia. Phobia is a fear, so fear of trans people
MSC: find difficult to say
JJ: trans activists bandy that around with everything and use it to accuse people of being terfs or transphobes,

particularly women's spaces and spaces of vulnerability, that's what we're talking about?
MSC: that's a broad thing to say, contest its a general term and that's why I say don't use it.

JJ: email from Rosemary says SA was transphobic to GP members, u don't see that as abusive?
MSC: no, it's critical.
JJ: a 'known transphobe'

MSC: don't know how he's using it, for some it's abuse some it's not
JJ: people use that and you know, that it's used as a term if abuse.
CC: someone just laughed and I'd ask judge to reiterate rules
J: yes do not respond

JJ: [reads 'these people, anyone who has GC beliefs are transphobic' 'should be sacked for transphobia'] U don't see this as abusive?
MSC: disappointed they communicate this way
JJ: do u agree content of email is abusive?

MSC: it'll say its hurtful
JJ: well at least we're getting somewhere. Now this email accuses SA of being highly transphobic? Accept?
MSC: I haven't accepted the use of the word is abusive.

JJ: this email describes views as toxic and dangerous. They say as a non binary transpersonal. Is this Abusive?
MSC: that's the view of someone who feels personally threatened by SA beliefs. Since we don't have a clear

definition of what homophobic means can't go much further.
JJ: here we have a journalist asking about transphobia.
MSC: I see this as a response from party to potentially damaging story
JJ: u asked him to say as little as possible?
MSC: that's usual.

[Moved in to internal convos. JJ reading message]
JJ: he's saying we should get behind spokesperson.
MSC: this is very sensible comment and I'd agree

JJ: by beginning of June Matt brown was getting ready to challenge? This is Rachid Nix (RN) [reads 'onvious appointment has caused upset and orchestrated campaign targeting.] That's your own equality and diversity

officer explaining what was going on. They have expertise?
MSC: yes
JJ: and deserves respect?
MSC: i respect it later on
JJ: he's not downplaying it
MSC; I'm not downplaying, can see conflict

JJ: [reads 'call off attacks'] He expresses what he has seen breaches COC for members
MSC: both sides were breaching
JJ: were focusing on DA. Do u accept breach?
MSC: asking me to accept something very general and I can't.

[BREAK 15 MINUTES]

@threadreaderapp please unroll