Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. This is Part 1 of the afternoon session of DAY 5 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales. Previous coverage can be found on our substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com

Abbreviations J - Judge Hellman, presiding
SA - Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ Jeffrey Jupp, barrister
EM Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor, Didlaw

GP/ 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

GPEX / GPX - Green Party Executive
YG - Young Greens
SG - Scottish Greens

CC: There is a document I hope you have your honour to go in supp bundle. Claimant doesn't object to this going in evidence. ER can you turn to file 8, [gives ref]. When you were under cross you mentioned a statement.

Is that the statement you were referring to?
ER: It is
CC: No further questions.
JJ: Just a couple of questions.

J: No objection to JJ further questions I take?
CC: Given late evidence no
J: JJ please continue

JJ: [Gives bundle refs] Was there a reference in the draft specifically to GC issue? Is that what she was objecting to?
ER: Only since Diverse Matters report that we spoke specifically on GC issues

JJ: But here announcing review of trans stance. Suggests draft we haven't seen had a ref to trans issues
ER: Maybe. I wanted to ensure ppl understood that members should review the rights and responsibilities charter
JJ: My question is can you recall the gist of words she wanted

removed.
ER: Cant remember
JJ: MC comes in. Says retitle + change emotive to difficult issues. The Sian Berry final input. She agrees title is a problem and very sensitive to wording being too weighted in one direction?

ER: Maybe her intention not sure thats shown here
JJ: Thank you

J: Thank you ER. [Witness released. JB is called and affirms the oath]

[CC confirms JB WS with JB and has no questions]
JJ: What was the purpose of this para? [gives ref] Looks like saying SA serial complainant
JB: No

JJ: A mathematician in GP noted counting of votes was irregular. There was no doubt about this
JB: There was doubt and dispute about correct mathematical formula. SA challenged as did another

JJ: A serious matter. After the count, investigation?
JB: If you say so
JJ: "Aftermath" so no doubt a miscount. It wasnt SA who first drew attention to the issue?
JB: I dont know who challenged first.

JJ: Leadership whatsapp group. You, SB and EW. Of those 3 you are the only one here to give evidence so I can only ask you about this

On 7/3/2021 the final spokespeople approved. Straightaway, SB is looking at process and trying to open up
JB: Amongst other things
JJ: You come in and say previously spokespeople need approval by GPEX but you werent involved in the decision

The position was that GPEX has approved a process by which MSC was to lead the selection of spokespeople. Correct?
JB: To best of my recollection
JJ: Everyone thought she had authority for that?
JB: With committee

JJ: If SA not selected, SB wouldnt be bothered about process would she?
J: JB not in a position to know that
JJ: He was party to the convo and would get the sense
J: Well its text so
JJ: Very well

JJ: Leadership call 2 June. Were you on that?
JB: Cant recall. Weekly calls but I was not always on
JJ: Had you discussed SB concerns re SA with her?
JB: No

JJ: Did you recall [ref from whatsapp group]
JB: This group spanned several years. Hard to recall.
JJ: Whatsapp not only comms
JB: Email, whatsapp or call but mainly whatsapp

JJ: EW talking about process rather than 'specific person'. Who was specific person?
JB: I'm willing to speculate
J: Dont speculate

JJ: Chat re comms risk and being wise and practical. Do you remember meeting with MSC with SB inviting her to revisit appointments process?
JB: This is about antisemitism not GC issues
[Missed]
JJ: SB says cannot stand by their appointment. Is that SA?
JB: I would imagine.

JJ: Monday spokesperson launch. She is asking your views. Why are you fronting this and not SB or both of you?
JB: We are co-leaders. Press office looks at diaries and sees who is available. SB schedule hectic as London Assembly

JJ: Are minutes of leadership calls taken?
JB: No
JJ: How do you know what has been agreed?
JB: MC gives action points after
JJ: Retains in her head and not written down?
JB: I don't know how Mary operates

JJ: Here lots of GPEX corres around launch and SA
JB: I was on leave then
JJ: No we are talking about when you are back
JB: Ok I don't recall

Let me clarify I think I was on leave but took time out for leadership call which sometimes I have to do. I may have done that.

JJ: Theres an email chain that sets out in some detail the discussion over the weekend. Does that jog your memory as to whether you are aware of these matters being raised over w/e?
JB: I dont recall these emails. Doesnt mean I didnt get them

JJ: You are on email chain just to be clear
JB: I get over 100/150 emails a day. I may have just scanned when I got back from leave

JJ: Can we agree that by time of launch there is tension and anxiety over SA and this issue
JB: Yes tension and anxiety over a whole range of issues. Antisemitism, anti-trans. SA is divisive figure in the party. People felt SA against the leadership. Caroline Lucas felt too.

JJ: You are making a political speech full of wild allegations none of which are relevant. You are trying to broaden the attack.
JB: I think it is relevant
J: A question isn't a cue for a talking point
JB: My apologies

JJ: You were aware of process issues since March weren't you?
JB: Yes or maybe before [mentions something about JG and antisemitism]
JJ: Why are you aways trying to bring in JG and antisemitism? Back to launch. You didnt arrive til 10.30?
JB: Late as given wrong tube station

JJ: At launch you spoke to MSC on a bench didnt you?
JB: Yes
JJ: Discussion SA and the tensions?
JB: No we would have discussed in advance, maybe on leadership call. I just realised Khan Ross has advocated bombing of Syria and it was clear process not thorough.

JJ: I suggest you are mistaken
JB: You saying Im lying?
JJ: Im saying I put that you are mistaken
JB: No
JJ: Video of your speech at launch and group photos?
JB: There were photos, video likely

JJ: For publicity?
JB: More for internal processes to buoy membership
JJ: But those photos/vidoes werent circulated
JB: I remember tweeting them. What you are saying is an internal comms responsibility

JJ: Do you consider surprising that video/photo not circulated?
JB: Yes but internal GPEX co-ordinators were pretty incompetent to be honest so not surprised

JJ: Here is doc you refer in your WS. Final draft of it here. There were clearly discussions with you and MB before this paper was produced?
JB: I dont think so. I think MB emailed me concerns but no discussions that I recall

JJ: Email to you and SB from MB. "I attach paper we discussed"
JB: You are absolutely right my apologies
JJ: Recall discussion?
JB: I cant

JJ: Here you say you have gone through paper and tracked changes. So you were involved in draft?
JB: I was
JJ: You didnt amend para re SA public statements did you?
JB: No
JJ: Those public statements included GC beliefs?

JB: Would have included other issues
JJ: [Missed]
JB: I was worried about Khan Ross and other issues. As a party leader I might have to go up against Jeremy Paxman to explain why spokesperson is saying something that is not our line

JJ: Here you talk about campaign by Green feminists. Do you accept that more concerns raised to GPEX by TRAs?
JB: I dont recall exact numbers on either side. I think 14/15 from Green feminists. Whats the number on the other side?
JJ: You dont mention other side at all do you?

JB: I dont actually recall a lot of emails from the other side
JJ: In lead up to GPEX meeting there were concerns about abuse of SA raised werent there?
[JB mentions Green feminists]
JJ: No. We are not talking about GF we are talking about calling SA transphobic etc

JB: Depends on context. I am sad noone trans in this court so I have to advocate for them. If you question identity...
JJ: [Raises voice] Your position is that anyone who advocates for sex-based rights is transphobic?
JB: [Also raises voice] Trans people have suffered

I would never call anyone terf
J: [Intervenes to calm matters and clarify JB position]
JJ: What do you mean by questioning identity?
JB: For example in Lambeth we had listening service. When you talk about a debate it questions their identity and they see that as transphobic

JJ: Do you not accept that when we are talking about eg rape crisis that is legitimate for women and not saying no respect for T people
JB: Im saying better to conduct via eg listening circle. Free speech is not limitless
JJ: But if people are courteous?

JB: Can you express homophobia in a courteous way?
J: I understand both sides. Not going to get anywhere lets move on
JJ: Just before GPEX meeting on 20 June, Jenny is horrified about abuse of SA. Is she being dishonest?
JB: She is GC. We disagree on what transphobic means

JJ: Anyone who says anything about sex-based rights has to be cancelled in your view?
JB: Not at all, we can speak in listening circles. Debates on social media are visibly hurting trans people. If SA wanted to come to a safe space we might be able to facilitate a discussion.

JJ: Here talking about GPEX meeting. Some thought it was a plot to remove SA as spokesperson. Minutes. PB expresses his concern about appalling attacks including by GPEX members. I assume you didnt share that sentiment?

JB: Frequently flaming rows about whole load of issues. Usually we split into 2 camps. PB is in one. We put out a statement in Feb appealing to stop conflict across a range of issues. Car crash. Conflict ridden party. I can say this Im not leader now. Needed a dialogue.

I also feel SA stirs up on twitter and thrives on conflict. Its what he does. Its not healthy.
JJ: PB not the only one expressing concerns. Rashid makes point that procedural issue only a big deal as SA. Fair point?
JB: I recall Rosie trying to diffuse conflict

JJ: I'll come to that. Back to Rashid.
JB: No. There have been so many procedural issues. Rashid didnt attend many GPEX meetings. Not the experience to make that statement

JJ: You dont think there is a conflict of rights?
JB: I think there are conflicts but how it is framed doesnt do justice to trans people trying to speak truth to power
JJ: Vulnerable women in rape crisis are a powerful group?
JB: Thats about policy not the groups

[Discussing MB paper]
JB: Trying to bring the split party together. I was trying to find the way forward with that paper. Clear procedural issues and reputational risks to party. Needed a resolution
J: Two groups is broader that GC vs Trans. There were many issues?

JB: One negative group that wants to kick leadership. One positive group. People get onto GPEX to cause hell sometimes.
J: So you see it as a good group and a bad group?
JB: One group positive about party and one not
JJ: Which group are you in?

JB: Im trying to be in the middle.
JJ: Berry camp had intended purpose to get rid of SA with the process in the MB paper?
JB: No

JJ: [Discussing email chain in working group that followed GPEX.] MSC says this is another example of a process designed to remove SA spilling over... So do you accept that is what was going on?
JB: No. [Refers again to Khan Ross]

JJ: Remember this exchange with Jenny Jones. "Putin complex." She watched GPEX meeting?
JB: I dont know
JJ: Well she accused you of failing the GP as you did nothing to heal the split.
JB: No as she also says your concern re process is valid.

JJ: She describes MB as competent but uses tactics of hard right / hard left activists. Do you accept the force of her observations on MB and SB?
JB: MB not stuck me as disruptive. Hard right/hard left, Im at a loss. SB has tried to block SA repeatedly.

They have history in the London election context.
JJ: You resigned but still involved in working group with MB?
JB: I cant remember

JJ: MB tried to get you involved here and you reply to thank him etc. He is prepared to lead a vote to remove SA and KR. You reply not contesting re SA yes?
JB: Not sure I dont think a vote was taken though

JJ: No. 5 June letter to you , SB and EW complaining that complaints of antisemistim have been dismissed so you knew they had been.
JB: No, this could have gone to secretary and I didnt know
CC: No further questions from me.

J: Ok we adjourn til 10am on 2nd October. [Requesting to keep written submission reasonable length and provided 3 days before hearing]
JJ: Can I have precise page limit?
J: 50 is the limit but its not an invitation! And please keep typeface reasonable

J: Can I just say that its is a very positive thing from the courts point of view to have people observing here today and tweeting so people know what is happening and how court works.
END OF DAY 5 (No Part 2!)/

@threadreaderapp please unroll