Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon and welcome to DAY 4 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales (GPEW). We expect to hear from more witnesses from GPEW.
2.15am 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 bear 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 are back at 2pm, not 2.15. Waiting for Judge]

J: I remind u NSC u are still under affirmation.
JJ: u were in court yesterday when I took MC through SB conduct at end if August 2021 when she exorted members not to vote. Remember?
MSC: yes

JJ: effect was she published a statement. Will ask u about another spokesperson Benali Hamdache.
Now BH is and was a spokesperson for GP right?
MSC: yes
JJ: he Tweets essentially agreeing with SB?
MSC: yes
JJ: that contravenes COC
MSC: deal with this in my WS

MSC: we don't enforce standards as strictly during leadership contest.
JJ: just let me understand. Will summarise. Having hung SA out to dry for Tweets you let off BH
MSC: explain hanging out to dry

JJ: basis was Tweets of SA during leadership process. Here we have someone in breach of code and you've done nothing.
MSC: which part of code?
JJ: unity and divisive code. He's not supporting one candidate or another,

he's supporting SB acting inappropriately who isn't a candidate.
MSC: this is one tweet in contrast to large dossier from MB
JJ: no disclaimer on BH tweets. Accused SA of supporting openly trasnphobic campaign.

MSC: if this had been referred to me I'd have invited him to speak to me
JJ: you have known about this tweet for over a year and others too. Right that no action against BH?
MSC: right
JJ: moving on to your policies that judge asked about before lunch

JJ: this was the platform which SA stood on. The debating reality check section, have u heard re trans rights the 'no debate policy'
MSC: not familiar
JJ: infamous stance by Stonewall for no debate on trans debate.

MSC: understand
JJ: u said to judge that that section of debating reality, clearly contradicts self ID policy bit I can't see anywhere where self ID is mentioned.
MSC: if u accept a person who declares themselves a woman it

means those people can enter same sex spaces for women. We stand for principle for ppl who self declare as women should have access to those spaces and its clear SA doesn't.
JJ: Self ID is the process a person relies on someone making a declaration

(Missed)
MSC: if we state as full principle that TWAW those people should have access to single sex spaces and this is a core disagreement with people in party.
JJ: what's the disagreement?
MSC: I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that's party policy.

(Missed)
MSC: I felt he had a right to discuss his views
JJ: u didn't mention in your WS that he stood on platform and contradicted party policy
[Takes to policy]

JJ: this covers people not under EA10, eg, economic status. It includes sex, separately from gender and separately from gender reassignment and sexual orientation. If we now look at trans rights policy, where it says GP recognises TM are Men and

TW are Women, that's a statement of identity isn't it?
MSC: yes
JJ: this para deals with self ID, ur policy ppl can change gender or self identify simply by declaration. Removal of any medical input or certificate from the state.

Para 5 is the one that has loomed large in this case [reads 'currently exemptions should be scrapped'], not seen in papers, that that means single sex spaces should go, why doesn't it say that?
MSc: I'm not an expert in this area of law

JJ: I'm suggesting deliberately ambiguous. Ea10 has a number of exceptions. [Takes through exceptions] There's are exemptions for organised religion. U accept?
MSC: yes

JJ: what were talking about with singlesex spaces, is what is does is provides protection for another PC. If one looks at plain working of ur policy it doesn't say single sex spaces does it?
MSC: no

JJ: your other policies conflict with that. This is your health policy. It says all women entitled to high level of care durong pregnancy. We can all agree TW cannot get pregnant but TM can
MSC: yes
JJ: that should make specific provision for TM

MSC: this is new area of law and establishes principles but not worked toward all of it conforming to that
JJ: MC told us there's no hierarchy of policies. The trans policy was introduced in 2016 and at the time the other policies were considered at

the time. When u introduce a trans rights policy u have to look at others
MSC: I couldn't expect this to happen as all voluntary
JJ: that policy is replete with policies to pregnant women and no ref to trans men. There is mention of 'pregnancy people'. That suggests

someone has applied their mind to this policy
MSC: could just be written more recently
JJ: this is the criminal justice policy. U can see different categories of ppl covered. Trans ppl are covered separately for men and women

MSC: it doesn't mean we don't refer to them as women
JJ: point in in ur policies, bio women are dealt with differently from transwomen and are entitled to single sex spaces. We see this deals with pregnant women in prison and that existing women's prisons should

be replaced. Then talks about female prison population. What I'm suggesting to u is that the policies are deliberately ambiguous bc if u know if u were to say that explicitly, that u would remove all single sex spaces for women, that would cause

massive cavern in your party.
MSC: don't accept but accept u have revealed inconsistencies
JJ: in 2021 SA is saying his SM contents was consistent with party policy bc the policy wasn't to get rid of all same sex spaces.

MSC: I believe its covered in the policy and it was clear his campaign was inconsistent with the policy
JJ: u have deliberately not stated u wouldn't get rid of spaces for bio women bc a significant amount of ur party would be outraged

MSC: I believe it can be dealt with with safeguarding not single sex spaces.
JJ: what do u mean by safeguarding?
MSC: like recent example in Scotland, where a prisoner should be, rather than them defining the gender, they conduct safeguarding

JJ: your policy doesn't provide for that. Let's test example. A man rapes a woman and violent history against women. By ur policy by the time he reached trial has changed and choose which prison

MSC: I disagree as a risk assement was carried out and that prisoner was not put in female estate
JJ: but that person as matter of law would be entitled to be in women's prison.

MSC: the fact there's an exception, I'm not an expert, a decision would be taken into account
JJ: just think it through, ur saying a risk assessment would be carried out, they'd either be housed on their own or in male prison

MSC: going against my expertise now
CC: I think this has gone as far as it can. None of the policies are formulated in detail.
JJ: say a girls sports team playing rilugby. Atm the law allows for that team to be for bio girls. 14 year old boys grow very quickly. Imagine he's

6ft and they're 5'2, under ur policy and get rid of all exceptions there'd be nothing to stop that self identified child playing on team
CC: can I raise a point. Jj is going into detail of policies. This is matter for submissions.

J: thrust of question is policies deliberately ambiguous bc sort of examples u raise would cause debate and possible hostility depends where u stand in debate
JJ: yes. GP has adopted sweeter policies so ppl on both sides of debate can latch on. That's deliberate

intense the party doesn't want to engage in that debate
MSC: not correct and agree with SA that we should debate constructively

JJ: we'll move to matt brown complaint. He's the person we say who drove the technical procedural issues to get this all reopened. We

say he amended COC to introduce unity provision and he was first person to complain
MSC: don't agree, (missed)
JJ: complaint came in when contest was going on
(Missed)

MSC: he was clearly establishes during campaign he would be a champion for this issue and that would increase heat and had influenced others.
JJ: just want to understand. What u mean by that para is that u didn't deal with the complaints?

MSC: I see what MB sent as a dossier not a complaint. It demonstrated how SA had broken code
JJ: he presented series of allegations isn't isn't?
MSC: not helpful to call it complaints
JJ: that's why I said allegations
MSC: I see it evidence of breaches. I

believed the Tweets were genuine
JJ: but not whole context. Look at complaint itself. This complaint contains gross misrepresentations.
MSC: when SA came to us and presented to us, I felt important to distinguish between complaints

JJ: you headed your email 'complaints which broke COC'
MSC: yes and u got in a lot of trouble
J: sorry
MSC: it's true I saw it as a complaint at first. Then saw they were criticisms as a spokesperson

JJ: I'm going to say complaints bc that's what u called them. Look at this report, its MB complaining about SA tweeting re SB. Doesn't mention w facts, first SB resignation statement and 2nd to vote
MSC: he's providing series of criticisms of SA

JJ: it's a one sided view of what he regards needs investigation
MSC: yes his view which he's entitles to
JJ: not a fair and objective paper?
MSC: not taking both sides
JJ: Tamsin Ormand says women standing up for their rights are 'TERF floaters'

[Moves to Marion Miller issue
JJ: that had been subject for convo in the summer.]

[Moves to Times article. 'What is a woman']
JJ: looking at what Brown says about the article. The 2 points he takes are 1. The mocking of female GP member, that refers to where GP members were asked 'these facts are not in dispute' Journalist says 'but they are'.

A candidate said a woman was 'an attitude'.
MSC: we have a journalist, maybe stoking division, a spokesperson shouldn't be helping him do that.
JJ: he was simply quoting last line of article. At the time Labour had similar policy.

MSC: not comfortable with someone sharing that article
JJ: GP refers to women as 'self identified non-males'. Now scroll down to regional Council members. U see how they describe themselves 'non male co-chair' and 'non-female co-chair'.

MSC: [reading bundle] yes you've found evidence GP have saidthat.
JJ: first point is MBs is a one sided complaint?
MsC: complaint against 1 person
JJ: it's inaccurate. SA was trying to attract new ppl to party

MSC: and I say that's damaging
SS: I say this is amalicious complaint from MB u agree
MSC: absolutely not
JJ: u think its just a coincidence
MSC: I refute allegation I was played and whole process was against SA

JJ: what happens next was SSMG meeting. Complaint from MB came in in Sept and u circulated it to colleagues. On day of meeting ur exchanging WhatsApp msgs with SA. You say [reads 'request spokesperson, COC'] I think this is Spokesperson group WhatsApp. then u say [reads].

What ur saying there is nothing anything spokespeople tweeted recently is concerning
(Missed)
JJ: the terms if reference required there'd be a leadership rep, that was no rep was there?

MSC: one already resigned and didn't see point of bring in acting rep. Ppl finding their feet and they didn't reach us. I felt we were engaged in process and didn't think helpful to bring someone else in
JJ: so answer is no
MSC: no

JJ: so u didn't comply. No notes is there?
MSC: there should be. If we had full meeting I'd have taken minutes
[Bundle search]
JJ: we've already established you headed email as 'complaints'. What u did was, u hadn't yourselves drawn

up allegations for him to answer?
MSC: if allegations come to us then we deal with those. We were responding to dossier sent to us.
JJ: this dossier as u describe could lead to removal of SA of pokesperson role?

JJ: that complaint could lead to removal of SA?
MSC: yes
JJ: do u say there has to be due process. Has to be allegations, response to them and a finding? And if accurate a sanction applied.
MSC: (lists other things that come into play)

JJ: were starting at beginning of process. We see on email, his reply, he fires response to u and sets out his concerns?
MSC: yes
JJ: not hyperbolic, measured response and facts as he see them.

JJ: Rachid Nix expresses concerns here, u can see. Nothing inaccurate?
MSC: it's a one sided view (can't hear)
J: sorry
MSC: my issue is that its damaging to party
JJ: RN is wearing E&D hat here?
MSC: yes

JJ: a few days later SA on this email, in a polite way, SA asked questions about process.
MSC: yes
JJ: then we get ur reply to RN. SA was copied in. SA says he wants to make a presentation [reads]. He's making it clear he can't address all
MSC: can I respond?

JJ: yes
MSC: the process was confidential and I said very clearly we'd assess and that's not what he focused on
JJ: that's what ur saying in a court room and WS but not what u said at the time. Look at page 9.
MSC: [reads]

JJ: he has 20 mins to make his case and counter allegations. The allegations are numerous and detailed in 2 reports. U expect him to mount defence in w0 mins?
MSC: he could give written submissions and I did give him twice as much time. He spoke for 40 mins

JJ: there's 2 ways of doing this. U say u don't take account of any of the allegations due to leader race but that's not your position now.. was 20 minutes fair?
[MSC cut off by judge]
J: was 20 mins a fair process
MSC: there was opp for written subs

JJ: by now we're 27th Oct, almost month since election. Ur not in possession of material different to MB complaint
MSC: informally
JJ: u told him he had opp to counter allegations, u gave him more time but when he got to meeting u told hom u

weren't going to deal with allegations
MSC: I was trying to be clear about his performance and whether conforming to spokespeople
JJ: but in any role if ur going to criticise someone's performance that's based on allegations. Has to be some determination as to whether

true at minimal standard
MSC: I don't think u understand how process works. His choice of platform focusing on gc issues had caused a lot of division in party. I wanted to start again. Can we be sure u won't continue in this way after leadership contest.

JJ: he's entitled to be alarmed with you running with MBs complaint
MSC: I don't see MB as you or SA do
JJ: he goes to meeting with serious allegations against him. He's expecting to deal with that
MSC: he was expecting to focus on things I was not.

JJ: look at minutes. His focus was on meeting complaints and ur focus was an overview. Fair?
MSC: no he focused on historical complaints. Our focus was better working relationship and that he would use our support as well as monitoring

JJ: until MB complaint came in, u personally as head had no concerns about him?
MSC: I did. I felt let down. Following controversy in summer he chose to ficus leadership campaign that was decisive and I felt betrayed

J: u felt?
MsC: betrayed. He chose to focus on campaign on something damaging.
JJ: you're not...
[Phone goes off]
J: can we deal with that
MSC: it's my phone
J: well it's 3.30 shall we take a break

[COURT ADJOURNED]

@threadreaderapp please unroll