Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Nov 21 48 tweets 8 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Good morning. We will be live tweeting submissions (oral arguments) today in Sharar Ali vs Green Party et al. Our previous coverage can be found here:…
Our usual health warning on live reporting on submissions: oral argument is the most difficult form of proceedings to live tweet. We do not have access to written submissions that are frequently referred to. There are frequent references to case law and
Legislation that ranges from the familiar (Forstater vs CGD) to the obscure. Our reporting aims to relay the relevant aspect of the case law rather than repeat the citations. The barristers are usually reading from scripted remarks and often speak quickly and or quietly.
We report what we hear and can transcribe. We appreciate the patience and understanding of followers.
Key abbreviations:
SA or C - Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ - SA barrister
EM - Elizabeth McGlone, SA solicitor
GPEW or R - Green Party of England & Wales, defendant, represented by Elizabeth Reason and Jon Nott
CC - Catherine Casserley, barrister
MJ - Mindy Jittray, solicitor, R, Bates Wells
JL - Julia Lagoutte, GPEW officer
ZH - Cllr Zoe Hatch, GPEW officer
RN - Rashid Nix, GPEW officer
MC - Mary Clegg, GPEW officer
MSC - Molly Scott Cato, GPEW External Communications Coordinator
ER - Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022
JB - Jonathan Bartley, co-leader, GPEW, 2016-2021
Proceedings will not start before 10 am. We will advise when we have a definitive start time.
We will be starting at 10:30 am.
We will be starting at 10:30 am.
We are waiting for the judge.
The judge and lay assessor have arrived. We begin.
J- Judge Hellman
L - lay assessor
EM - a supplemental bundle of authorities, asking J if she should stand to speak.
J - reminding that he has written arguments both opening and closing.
EM - proposed structure: summary, structure, evidence, claims. If J thinks I’m labouring a point please tell me.
J - I do ask questions during oral argument. And I want a fair distribution of time for the parties. Perhaps the morning for the R and the afternoon for C. I want to be finished by 4:30.
JJ - I will not need that much time.
EM - C is seeking the intervention of
Of the court in the governance of a political party.
J - please speak up.
EM - I will endeavour to shout. Repeats point about intervention in the affairs and management of a political party. And about how policy is determined in a political party.
EM - it is our case that when considering the rights under art 11 of the C, but also the art 9,10,11 rights of the R. The C stayed in his role, the actions of the R in maintaining him in his role speaks volume s.
J - are you saying that GP did take SA’s views into account when deciding to dismiss him.
EM - that’s what MSC said
J - is that one of the reason why he was dismissed as spokesperson
EM - it was part of the context
J - I would appreciate a straight answer, yes or no
EM - the reasons was the speakers code
J - was it what he said during the election

EM - he enhanced his GC ground during that election, would not give assurances about his future behaviour and engagement with SSMG was not forthcoming.
EM - ref to bundle
J - are these in your written subs?
EM - no
J - can you give me all the references now
EM - (reels off list of references to bundle by number)
J - SA says he was seeking reasonable questions and reasonable behaviour
J - he was seeking a reasonable discussion
EM - he was offered opportunities to engage in that debate in public which he would not take up without unreasonable detailed restrictions
EM - now discussing constitution of the GP. All elected by membership and entrusted by membership
They are entrusted to carry out the view of the membership and those views are expressed in elections and if 5% of membership demand it.
EM - local parties have own constitutions, responsibilities, local orgs and local leads. Are elected. Going back to the structure of the party, and relevance of EA. EA makes it illegal to discriminate in certain aspects of activities.
EM - now referring to EA in bundle,
J - do you want to draw my attention to a particular section
EM - I won’t spend time on detailed analysis, I will turn to the case law under the EA. In particular. There is little between myself and C’s counsel on what constitutes direct
Discrimination. A lengthy description in a particular case, I won’t go through all of it. Where C’s counsel and I do differ are on hypothetical comparators,these are not appropriate. C relies on a particular case.
A case involving a woman who worked in a school, was asked to remove a face veil, refused and was dismissed. Purpose of comparator is to establish if less favourable treatment was received. Was the person treated differently. Extensive discussion of whether comparator
Was appropriate and that comparator claimed by C is not appropriate.
EM conts with suggested appropriate comparator
J - what about the belief of the comparator
EM - the belief must be left out
J. - its irrelevant whether the comparator holds a similar belief
EM - yes.
J - so the expression of a protected belief is central to what happened to C. What is the relevant comparator?
EM - something that is not protected is the relevant comparator, say an objection to
J - you invite me to compare the treatment of someone who behaves as C behave
And has an unprotected but controversial belief.
EM -yes
EM - going on to protected belief. Referring to particular case, and page number
EM - dealing with direct discrimination. Case law has recognised difference between holds and manifests belief
and if the manifestation was so objectionable as to be unreasonable. There are cases on inappropriate manifestation, R relies on a case as to some of the factors that may be taken into account. Possibly referring to Randal v Trent College. (Mumbling)
EM conts. - describing case
Vicar giving sermons to children in chapel. Inappropriate as to place, audience and expression.
J - I can see that there are quite fine distinctions to be made here between what is and is not appropriate manifestation of belief. Can you give me an example of when
A manifestation may be appropriate if even still offensive. How do I decide if something is a manifestation but is also objectionable?
EM - if it is an objectionable manifestation it would have to satisfy the test of being proportionate. When it’s objectionable it depends
On the circumstances and that is fact specific.
J - I can see the point, that treatment is because of time, place and audience. But I’m having trouble distinguishing the manifestation from the belief.
EM - it’s about the audience
J - it is in fact talking about an
Objectionable manifestation.
EM - yes.
J - I can see that GP might make a point that its not his beliefs or manifestation but something else.
EM - it is not pure discrimination it is objectionable manifestation
EM - dealt with in more depth by Higgs. I won’t deal with that MLF will deal with Higgs.
(MLF -my learned friend)
EM - now moving on to discuss detriments. C must have suffered a detriment to have a successful claim. EHRC has produced a guide on detriments
J - but that’s in cases of victimisation.
EM - yes, nothing to suggest it doesn’t apply more broadly.
EM - detriments - discussion about it, a test of materiality that a reasonable worker might take the view that it was to his detriment, a sense of grievance is not evidence of detriment.
EM - the reasonable worker test means that Art 9 & 10 rights must apply and
Any speech must be taken under 9&10.
J - GP has a code of conduct, members must agree yes? And it says behave in a civil manner.
EM - but in an election, the Art 9&10 rights must be taken into account when determining detriments
J - this speaks to the heart of this case. Someone who holds a protected belief has the right to hold and express a belief, but another person has the right to contest and argue that belief. I’m concerned that any decision I make might apply more broadly and impact
How politics is debated and conducted in this country.
EM - yes
J - I can see that C is saying that they had it in for me, they disagreed with me and schemed to get rid of me. I can see considerable evidence that supports this. GP might contest this analysis.
J - set aside the governance point for a moment, does the right to free speech, does a person have the right to disagree with others in a political party. Does a person have the right to manoeuvre so that people with opposing beliefs are never in power?
EM - isn’t that politics? Don’t parties behave like that all the time.
Those are the ramifications of this claim.
J - let me ask you another question. You said the court should not interfere in internal party managements. But let’s suppose someone was dismissed not on belief
But because of race or disability? Is it reasonable for the court to intervene.
EM - that is a matter of race, it is reasonable to prohibit racist behaviour.
J - is there a hierarchy of characteristics
EM - in the context of political parties, belief must be treated differently
J - I’m sure you grasp my point, help me get there using the law.
EM - but this is about a political party and belief should be treated differently.
(Looking at opening and closing submissions)
EM - it is accepted that religious bodies and political parties can regulate their
Membership to those that share beliefs and values. This is only about membership. C’s claim is about the internal processes of the GP.
J - but C says that he was perfectly within existing policies of GP
EM - but R says that he was not within the existing policies, in breach of the code and divisive.
J - help me with this. Should the court determine if he was in accordance with the code or leave that to the GP
EM - pausing for thought. If of the view that Art 11 applies in this case, then you may need to make findings about the process.
J - so I shouldn’t wash my hands of the decision, I should decide myself if C was in breach of the code.
EM - may I have a moment?
(EM taking instruction)
J - we have an issue with computer power that we need to sort out urgently. So we need to take a mid-morning break. Will that cut into time for submissions?
EM - no.
Court rises until 11:45..
@threadreaderapp unroll please. End of morning part1.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets

Tribunal Tweets Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

Nov 21
Afternoon session, part 1 in Shahrar Ali vs Green Party et al. Earlier coverage of today.
JJ resumes.
The case can be seen through the prism of manifestation of belief. I'm going to deal with the law and some aspects of the facts.
The Court of Appeal had found that there was a genuine and reasonable concern to believe that expression of beliefs would be hurtful.
The case law recognises a distinction between when the reason is the fact of holding a belief and a case where objection could reasonably be taken to the manifestation of the belief. Not all objections are reasonable.
In a specific case of discrimination a human rights org
Read 45 tweets
Nov 21
We will resume shortly in Shahrar Ali vs Green Party et al. Part 1 of the morning session is here:
We resume.
Apologies. Initials for R’s barrister are CC. Was using EM.
Read 47 tweets
Nov 1
Part 2 thread on the judical review RC v the gender recognition panel re non-binary status.
Abbrevs: J Judge
RC Complainant C
GRP Gender recognition panel
JE Sir James Eadle KC, Counsel for GRP
JE: We do say the Joubert case will assist this case - even though the no Art 3 claim has ever been mounted at any stage but it does stray beyond the bounds of proper assistance and into advocacy. The basic purpose of that document
JE: seems to be that it's all very good - if you're going to get sucked into a debate - that isn't the point on which I take my stand. It seeks wholly inaccurately to present as simple and pragmatic things which are both complex and ultimately under each of the foreign
Read 30 tweets
Nov 1
We are about to join the afternoon session of the judical review RC v the gender recognition panel re non-binary status.

J Judge
RC Complainant C
GRP Gender recognition panel
JE Sir James Eadle KC, Counsel for GRP
J Further requests for remote access and will develop a schedule. Want to emphasise re not recording if attending remotely. Certain reference to the explanatory notes and wld be helpful to have a note on this

JE On legis backdrop, correct that GRA was after Goodwin and Bellinger
JE was a remedy. Is an area of legis policy covered by small and cautious legis steps, telling strongly against parliament making quite a large step eg various types of gender. So the conception re how the GRA works and use words in their legis context
Read 51 tweets
Nov 1
CB: we know that New Zealand accepts NB markers since 2005 so it was possible the it was on governments rader in 2004. If they didn't see NB does this undermine my interpretation?
[apologies missed some of this - references to cloning of embryos]
CB: question on whether this is covered by act turns on whether they are covered by genus of act. HOL (House of Lords) was authoritative on that point.
CB: Lord Bingham says the principal operates in same way re cloning of dogs. HOL says cloned embryo is same as other embryos even though cloning was not around when act was made. We say that even though NB wasn't mentioned at the time, it is still covered by same genus of the Act
Read 38 tweets
Nov 1
Good morning. Today we shall be tweeting the application for Judicial Review brought by a US citizen Ryan Castellucci against the Gender Recognition Panel. We expect the hearing to begin at 10.30 am.
Our substack page on the case is here:…
RC = Ryan Castellucci, bringing the application
GRP = Gender Recognition Panel
Read 66 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!