Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to DAY 5 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales. Today we expect Molly Scott Catow to continue giving evidence. 10am start. Catch up with coverage so far on our substack. #OpenJustice tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/shahrar-ali-…

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

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

JJ: you were seen last night in convo last night with ER. What were you discussing?
MCS: nothing to do with court. dinner
JJ: anything else? the case?
MSC: careful to avoid

JJ: you went back into court with ER, why?
MSC: I think she forgot her bag
JJ: you remember JB convo 2 years ago but not last night
MSC: remember significant convo

JJ: did you share msgs about the case last night?
MSC: no people sent wishes i did not discuss case
JJ: right could you look at email exhange in Nov 22

JJ: this is email with [?] James. you say somebody has a google alert for SA. does that mean this was a highly org campaign by ppl on that side?
MSC: no a google alert does not show that
[JJ refers to more of the email]
JJ: there was a group of people that were sending info about

SA and not any other spokesperson
MCS: no ppl were worried about a vulnerable group
JJ: GP doesnt operate in same way as other parties in terms of structure, 2 leadership groups. Role of leader not the same. Party operates on consensus and collab?
MSC: correct

[JJ takes to another bundle ref]
JJ: this is members COC. Para 12.2 reflects what I have just put. Given SA has spent 20 yrs in GP and steeped in the culture do you accept unfair to criticise him for seeking consensual approach?
MSC: I did offer him opp to discuss.

Not a relationship of equals.
J: You did give SA opp?
MSC: yes but as I said yty I had a role and authority as external comms co-ordinator.
JJ: but you critical of him trying to have a dialogue?

MSC: [ missed ]
JJ: No record in the papers of any votes by SSMG in Jan about decision to suspend SA
MSC: correct we prefer consensus
JJ: but no consensus so you have to vote?

MSC: no we have difficult task to try to find one
JJ: [another bundle ref] we know at least Malender[?] Nix and Neil were opposed to consensus. therefore vote?
MSC: Nix and Neil are one vote as job share. Had I taken vote would have gone for SA to be removed

[Discussion about whether MSC was up to date on constitutional rules of party and requirement to vote]

JJ: SSMG had no minutes?
MSC: Final decision was made over emails/phone so not minuted.

JJ: You claimed RM (Richard Mulander) was ambivalent. What he is doing is fairly reflecting the dispute that some ppl regard SA as not repping values but think he does
MSC: I agree but his role is to make a decision

JJ: What you are doing is using SA beliefs and way he manifests as reason to remove him and RM is conscious of that
MSC: I dont agree
JJ: On that form, you say another from MJ (Martha James). No from Nix/Neil, No from General walker or you
J: none from you?
MSC:I was spokesperson

JJ: Reason you gave for suspension was bc his decision to champion controversial position on trans rights
MSC: Correct

JJ: Your description of controversial view means there a small group who are highly at odds
MSC: [goes to what she said]
JJ: what do you mean by uncompromising approach to free speech?

MSC: he has to compromise when speaking on behalf of party
JJ: Im going to suggest to you thats mischaracterisation. During leadership debate he stood on the platform we discussed yty which includes sex based rights. When contest ended he reverted to spokesperson role.

Look at his social media, plenty of other issues on mainstream positions, do you accept that?
MSC: No. we invited him to SSMG to seek assurance he would be guided by us in his coms
JJ: Simply not correct. At no point has GP produced a dossier for interim period [ end of

leadership and GPX decision]. Im suggesting email to MJ where he says Im now going to focus on spokesperson role and you ignored it. Do you accept that?
MSC: No I dont. We were not convinced by his assurances

JJ: A flavour of what he was up against [gives bundle ref]. Email from Alexander S to GPEX "Continued transphobia in GP". By this point Forstater position has been handed down. This character describes them as "supposed GC ideology". These people wont listen will they?

MSC: Spokespeople are held to different standards
JJ: You were cowed by these ppl?
MSC: I do not accept. I believe ppl have a right to hold their beliefs

JJ: ZH tweeted later in year she had rejoined GP. AS view of that we can see.
MSC: Not disagreeing some communicate in way that falls below a standard
JJ: Can we agree ppl putting tremendous pressure on GPEX? A campaign?
MSC not in agreement

JJ: 28 Jan, week before, Vix[?] (policy coordinator on GPEX) is carrying out his role with no issues before. Then your equality and diversity coordinators resign. They were right that whole process was about removing SA bc of his beliefs?
MSC: I dont accept that

JJ: He references social media campaign and failure of GP to act. In final para he cautions about possibility of legal action?
MSC: we were all concerned
JJ: Whatsapp message by Mary C where she is telling you about a confidential complaint. Had you asked to be kept up to date?

MSC: Certainly not I'm not to know anything about complaints
[Discussion re MB's behaviour]
JJ: 4 Feb ZH resigned bc of process. Then meeting itself. You attended?
MSC: Yes
JJ: Only doc was final SSMG report
MSC: Other docs were available as discussed yty

[Discussing meeting notes]
MSC: All members had access
JJ: The minutes weren't in the papers. Lets be clear about what was available. Oct & Dec meeting minutes but they couldnt see the JA or MB complaints could they? Or the Jan meeting?

MSC: Not sure
JJ: You said in your WS that SA performance and comms during leadership were not taken into account we can see they were by you right at the end?
MSC: Previous behaviour not irrelevant but not most important thing in making our decision

JJ: Broken record but reason for this decision was bc SA beliefs and his manifestation which was not unreasonable at all?
MSC: Do not accept.
JJ: On the announcement, you cut off whatsapp contact, you then messaged him by whatsapp during day of meeting. What was the rush?

MSC: Change in relationship. Distressing for both. I thought he would want to know ASAP. Telephoned first. Ppl wanted to know.
JJ: This should have been more formal and considered. Disrespectful to him and rushed as pressure on you
MSC:Opposite. It was respectful to tell him ASAP

JJ: Matt Brown. You deny he was prime mover. Turn to bundle 3.
J: Cant help noticing we thought another 10 mins, been going for 45 mins. Up to you but there is only today for witness evidence.

JJ: Nearly done. Email exchange, working party to set up SSMG. What happened was MB had introduced a fairly convoluted disciplinary process which you and ER rejected. Then you say "this is another e.g. of where a process designed to remove SA is spilling over into general

processes. That is not in the interests of the Party." There we have it in black and white.

MSC: I dont accept your assertion that I was involved in process to remove SA. He became his own worst enemy I could no longer defend him. Became impossible to support him

JJ: What is meant by process designed to remove SA as speaker?
MSC: Process we designed was not specifically aimed at him.
JJ: MB young and inexperienced?

MSC: Don't know his age, don't see him like that
JJ: MB bullying nature towards you
MSC: Don't appreciate your characterisation Im old, being bullied
JJ: I did not say that. MB taking upon himself to insist on process is not putting you under pressure?
MSC: We see in evidence I

am capable of resisting pressure.
JJ: No further questions.

CC takes MSC to bundle ref and asks her to explain. Draft re setting up SSMG and the ToR.
CC: Track changes set out a detailed process for dealing with sanctions for spokespeople. Those amends were inserted by whom?
MSC: MB

CC: Comment at the end that says this is much too heavy handed and reads as employees, they are not. Can you confirm who that comment was from?
MSC: ER

CC: [Gives bundle ref] ToR that SSMG were working to?
MSC: Correct
CC: Detailed list of sanctions have gone?
MSC: Yes
CC: 27 Oct meeting. You were asked a number of Qs about that. Lets go to your WS

CC: You were asked by JJ whether you told SA what he said was not relevant and your answer was yes. Can you explain what you meant by that?
MSC: I think my point was there was historical context here but our purpose in that meeting was about moving forward. History provided

context but not in SSMG remit.
CC: Did you use the word relevant?
JJ: You cant get witness to change WS and prev evidence [missed]
CC: I'll leave. Can you explain this answer [gives ref]

MSC: My intention would be to make a general statement clearly explaining to members where the law is and that we acknowledge right to hold different views.
CC: Are you aware of statement in relation to an individual?
MSC: No would not be appropriate.
CC: No further questions

J: [Reads from bundle "all bets are off"] Did you say that and what did you mean?
MSC: I think I did say all bets are off. Not sure what I meant by it. I dont feel I can control if a spokesperson is a candidate. To me that suggests Im not sure rather than not taking an interest.

J: [Another bundle ref, MSC wrote to inform to suspend to go to GPEX. Her cover email says not in best interests for SA to continue as breached COC but we take racism points seriously and will investigate.] Was there an investigation and what was the outcome?

MSC: Yes by Diversity Matters [missed] J: Any further questions arising on that? JJ: No CC: No J: MSC you are released. You can discuss case now but I suggest not with anyone who is still due to give evidence. CC, your next witness? CC: I call ER. [ER affirms the oath]

[Discussing and confirming ER WS]
CC: I have no further questions.
JJ: Do you agree transphobia is fear or dislike of t ppl?
ER: Yes thats the case in law
J: Helpful to speak up please

JJ: Do you accept transphobia is a term of abuse?
ER: Classic way in which those who adhere to the trans perspective on all of this will use freely and it can be abusive yes
JJ: A technique to shut people down?
ER: It can be

JJ: GC is about retaining sex-based rights and just bc of that calling them transphobic is abuse?
ER: Yes
JJ: Terf abusive?
ER: Yes

JJ: [Gives bundle ref] You identify pressure by Sian Berry to remove SA. Do you agree she had a team around her in that endeavour?
ER: No, do not agree
JJ: EW and MB were supportive of that position no?
ER: I don't know when they came together.
JJ: Had by June in that paper

Look at list of names who signed that paper. They were all supportive?
ER: Yes MB and Florence were one job share [Lists other jobs shares]
JJ: Not asking you about vote asking you about people. They wanted him removed as he was GC?
ER: yes

JJ: [bundle ref] MB put on agenda and raises what he describes as serious irregularities. You simply could have ratified November irregularity. You didnt need to go through this process did you?
ER: I think it was right we formalised the process. We took a route to get there.

JJ: If someone had said I noticed we didnt formally approve MSC appointment system then that would have then been rubber stamped?
MSC: Constitution required GPEX to make that approval. It was appropriate to have a process.
JJ: Do you accept Berry camp latched on to this for their

own purposes?
ER: [Missed] [Incorrectly used MSC above instead of ER - apols!]

JJ: Brown paper. Proposals. They were talking about setting up a probationary review panel?
ER: Yes
JJ: They wanted a decision by GPEX in September meeting?
ER: Yes

JJ: Clear strategic plan they had in mind focussed on SA?
ER: Maybe but we wanted a process for all spokespeople and that would work for party as a whole.

JJ: 23 June. Message by GPEX member. Peter Barnett. Putting this in context, on 7 June SA announced as a spokesperson. Our case that from then to 23/6 there was a targeted campaign. Look at PB saying that he agrees with the concerns about onslaught on SA, yes?
ER: Yes

JJ: Go to minutes. We see partway through an entry headed "Peter expressed" and then "Rashid expressed". Raising GPEX playing a leading role in targeting. Did you share that view?
ER: Can see how end result of process would make it possible for any spokesperson to be dismissed

JJ: Point made is that GPEX in the past has overlooked procedural issues. Now not as SA. Over the page, more observations you might share, GPEX should demonstrate values and conflict of rights impacting
ER: Yes I do agree

JJ: Do you share concerns of [missed] that MBs paper was about silencing dissenting voices?
ER: No
JJ: Another view was that this was an attempt to hide behind process to make ideological point to dismiss someone they disagree with. Do you agree?
ER: No
JJ: Had one person in mind

ER: Can accept Berry etc all of one view
JJ: Do you accept as Chair of GPEX that you have a leadership role in the party?
ER: Yes
JJ: Do you agree culture set by leaders and their actions?
ER: Yes

JJ: If you dont take steps to stop bullies they will be emboldened?
ER: I always worked hard to foster good culture
JJ: You knew that there was sustained targeting for 2/3 months and GPEX leaders did nothing

ER: We could not take a side in this argument as will be unhelpful
JJ: I suggest your both sides argument is overstated. I think you would accept the majority of abuse from one side?
ER: Re SA, yes.

JJ: Take a step back. Do you accept that on broad view, abuse came from TRAs and their supporters and anything on GC side is dwarfed in comparison?
ER: Point is ppl choose to engage in these matters and he was choosing to engage causing the reaction/abuse.

He should cease in his role as spokesperson bc contributes to conflict
JJ: My question is that the abuse by GC people is dwarfed by TRA abuse (in general not just talking SA here)?
ER: I have seen abuse on both sides

JJ: SA not targeting individuals nor demeaning T ppl. He is simply setting out his GC beliefs in measured way. Open for ppl on other side to engage on the same basis?
ER: I agree SA is generally respectful and would agree responses to him are not always respectful.

JJ: Do you accept this issue does need to be debated in public in the party and outside?
ER: Would be helpful if this conflict was resolved.
JJ: We see other parties have shifted Self ID position. Not saying right or wrong just saying this is a product of ventilation of the issue

ER: I would say from dialogue.
[Discussing £360k funding stream from central party to local party]

J: JJ dont feel you have to go through all the points you did with MSC
JJ: Grateful for that indication.
JJ: [Bundle ref]. Do you accept this document doesnt set out a rebuttal of SA points but engages in wholesale abuse, transphobia etc and unacceptable isnt it?

ER: I dont like it.
JJ: Unacceptable isnt it?
ER: I said I don't like it.
JJ: Do you accept your role as chair carries significant authority? And if you chose you could exercise that by persuading others to take a stand by statement of support to SA?

ER: Occasionally I have rung people when behaviour like this
JJ: You don't need it to be written in policy that you can put out a statement of support. You can say its difficult, there are two sides but targeting is unacceptable. You could have done that?
ER: I think we did

JJ: That is the first time anyone has said that in this case. With respect SA wouldn't be doing this if that happened.
ER: I cant remember date but there was a statement
JJ: We have never seen that statement. Not in your WS.
J: Break until 12.

@threadreaderapp please unroll