Welcome to the afternoon session of DAY 7 of ex-primary school teacher 'A' v Nottingham County Council

'A' claims victimisation for whistleblowing & unfair dismissal for refusing to 'socially transition' a pupil

1.45pm start
Find previous reports/info on our substack (link ⬇️)

'A' was formerly referred to as 'Hannah' in 2024 case - which collapsed after a panel member's social media content was alleged to indicate anti-religious bias. This was later confirmed after a judicial conduct investigation in August 2024.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/hannah-v-a-p…

We are live-tweeting (now over from the Tribunal Tweets 1 account) from the morning session, day 6 of the rehearing of ‘A’ v Nottingham County Council, starting at 11 am. Day 1 was a reading day. Note: The Claimant was referred to as ‘Hannah’ in the previous 2024 hearing.

We hope to resume at 15:45 for the final session of Randall vs Trent College, employment appeal tribunal. The appeal has been agreed by consent and the case will be returned to ET for a full re-hearing of the merits. The afternoon discussion has been on costs. Abbreviations
BR - Bernard Randall, former chaplain of Trent College
TC - Trent College, first respondent
JH - J Hallows, second respondent
JR - J Rimington, third respondent
JT - His Honour Judge Tayler, sitting alone

We will return shortly to Fr Bernard Randall appealing his unsuccessful employment tribunal result following his dismissal as chaplain of Trent College. RB is being used for the respondents barrister as we didn't have the name. Paul Wilson, the Mr Wilson from an earlier tweet, is RB.

We are waiting still.

Randall's appeal has been agreed by consent, the case will be returned to the Employment Tribunal. The parties are discussing draft directions to accompany the judgment. BR's counsel is seeking a change of location and a speedy hearing.
Hope to be back at 12 pm. Parties have returned.

NF - is BR's barrister
RB - Respondents Barrister (Paul WIllson)

NF- have agreement on a set of directions, for annexing to ruling. Not agreed change of venue. This tribunal has power to remit to former or a new tribunal. Seems no jump to remit to locatio

Fr Bernard Randall is at the Employment Appeals Tribunal today. Appealing his unsuccessful employment tribunal result following his dismissal as chaplain of Trent College. We hope to be reporting on the appeal from 10:30 Our previous coverage of the case is here:
Dr Randall alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religion and beliefs and unfairly dismissed. Trent College maintains that the role of chaplain was eliminated as a cost control measure.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/bernard-rand…

PART 7. Day 2. Afternoon. DG (AHRC) closing.
DG: Oral submissions of AHRC complement written submission. Will take them in a classical way issue by issue. LH contends that there is a community of individuals who don’t want the applicant to have an exemption. He includes the AHRC. That is not the position of the AHRC, which has taken care to be impartial in responding to A case and respecting its statutory responsibilities. AHRC has expressed no view on what the outcome of this appeal should be, and has not said what the A can and cannot do in the tribunal

PART 6. Day 2, morning.
M How are we going for time?
LH I need till around 1.15 for closing statements
We are very grateful for accommodating LAG supporters in the room. LH [CLOSING STATEMENT] simple points 1/ LAG means no harm to anyone, 2/LAG wants the same human rights as offered to anyone, 3/ LAG is not seeking resources or anything else, 4/ there are others that do not want that to happen and that includes the AHRC.

1/ LAG vs AHRC Tuesday 3rd September DG closing submission part b [Part 8 overall?] DH: paragraph 2 it’s around 31 32 there is also a para 82 87 M: seeks to clarify if this is in the act or is DG’s argument ... 2/ DH: you will have heard CE of CA about that line of questioning about LBGTQI who are born female and are lesbian in her evidence that sex is binary and immutable so people DFAB will then take the gender ID of TIM or female and that is ...

DAY 2. Part 5.
M: enters the room: discussion about Dr Blake over whether she is required for CE so her evidence stands as is.[discussion about procedure]
LH: So that is not the provenance of the witness M: I look forward to that, you are aware there is a slight contradiction with the RA position. What is the difference between written and oral evidence?

Part 4, Day 1, afternoon. Dr Elena Jeffreys (EJ) appears on videolink.
Introductions and affirmation of witness
DG introduction can we please start with your full name and address
EJ Gives details
DG did you provide an expert report for this proceeding?
EJ Yes DG Date of report Have you read report or anything you want to add to it ?
EJ Lesbian space project I've heard other versions of what haopened since I submitted the report but none of it I can verify.

PART 3, day 1, morning. CA cross examination. M asked CA ‘what are your pronouns’. Peal of laughter from audience.
Clerk (James): CA took oath on affirmation. CA stated that having difficulty hearing, asked if there was amplification. M said he would try to speak up. LH: asked CA for full name and address. CA answered.
LH: two witness statements? One dated 21 july 2024 and second reply dated 28 august 2024. No changes? CA no. LH asked for those statements be her evidence in chief.

DG At para 23 of applicants submission there is nothing particular in SDA that limits the discretion of the AHRC but it is unfettered. DG but it is by the non-discrimination categories DG Browning says there are negative stipulations including not discriminating aginstr people on basis of GI.

PART 2. DAY 1. Morning. LH the reports of suicidality are not evidenced as being created by LAG. This is not about who is most marginalised or abused. That is not what 10a is about. Clients have the right to freely associate. They are lesbian feminists, have grown up with intolerable exclusion and violence, would like to participate. LGBTQ+ community have the right to disagree with that but not the right to prevent LAG’s activity.

DAY 1. Session opened late at 10.15. Legal teams introduced themselves. Steph C appearing for RA. referred to application dated 29 August to be made party to the proceedings, and to correspondence from AHRC expressing its position in relation to RA appli. SC suggested that the tribunal may wish to deal with this application first due to lack of time to process RA appli and objections. LH for LAG referred AHRC objections and was happy to proceed with RA submission being considered without her necessarily being a party

We will be reporting the second day of the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society from 10:30 am. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021. Details of the case, the various intervenors who have an interest in charities and whistleblowing and full coverage of the first day of the hearing are on our Substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/maclennan-vs…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society on whistle blowing protections will recommence at 2pm. This morning's report is here.
archive.ph/j8ttK Abbreviations:
NM/A - Nigel MacLennan, appellant
BPS/R - British Psychological Society, respondent

CM - Chris Milson barrister for appellant
EDS or DS - Emma Darlow Stearn barrister for appellant
OS - Oliver Spratt, solicitor for appellant

We expect to be reporting from 10:30 am on the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021. A tribunal ruled last year that MacLennan, an officer and trustee, did not have employment standing and thus the tribunal had no jurisdiction re detriments from making protected disclosures. The case has significance for the charity sector and whistleblowing.

Last part -
BN - is 7b is engaged then 7b should be engaged, in the way it was framed - it was said it was engaged.
BN - [addressing whether the in app communication - hard to prove - as whole thing shut down long ago - (goes to ability to prove what went on) BN addressing HR commision
- GI doesnt include thoughts & feelings
- chief justice for SA -when you have multiple purposes - you look at text and context on cases
BN - engage with conduct - 'her gender characteristics are why she is being treated like a man'

Part 4 -(Correction on MM, the name was actually Elodie Nadon, apologies)
Counsel coming in. BN - parties rely on conditions of court (lists paragraphs)
BN - speaks of the content of a treaty obligation what it depends on - reads the interpretative principles -
- given weight - footnote says taken as a whole - the int law,... BN says court only takes on recommendations

Part 3
BN - Have to engage with case as pleaded.
Honor made remarks - there is a division tween direct and indirect discrimination (dis')
Only one way to pursue this case is it has to be direct - indirect in discrimination -
J says planning direct and indirect discrimination.. J reiterates PLAINLY dir and indir discrimination.
J asking if only handling direct - not a way to procede
BN and arguing -BN arguing about a comparative class -
J says should address both,
BN says will do so - but makes the point - that the case has changed - as imprudent