Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.
I will also note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

From TT:

HH - Quite except circs for a G to be conducted and the recs of that to be ignored?
DH - I have not idea of that.
HH - the most appropriate way a re-hearing
DH - I disagree

DH - in line with defra procedure I undertook review

HH - did you speak to NB about the reason she over ridden decision
DH no
HH you adopted restricitive approach
DH I did not

HH - a decision had been taken by HR back in 2022 that SEEN would be permitted to form. you relied on that
DH not correct, I undertook review in line with defra guidance.

Helen Hogben's main issue is to suggest that he didn't weigh in heavily enough on the Agenda side/perspective. Trying to suggest he hadn't familiarised himself enough with the 'specialness' or subtleties of how 'offence' operates in trans activist circles.

I'm currently reminded of Judge Judy, 'If you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory'.

The straight forward answers this witness is giving compared to the previous is quite telling.

HH - Quite except circs for a G to be conducted and the recs of that to be ignored?
DH - I have not idea of that.
HH - the most appropriate way a re-hearing

The exceptional circumstance that lead to the recommendations of a grievance being ignored were that the recommendations of the grievance were unlawful or contrary to policy.

That doesn't address the process by which the grievance was conducted or require a re-hearing. Except possibly to outline to the arbiter what is, and what is not, within their purview to recommend.

From TT:

HH - C appeal letter in the bundle please. 1441. First two paras please. 2 grounds for the appeal one is delay and the second failure to engage in issues of 2nd grievance. In relation to 2nd element we can see those listed going to page 1443.
C also attached appendix

HH - agree that appeal is detailed.
DH it is
HH your outcome letter, a page and a half.
DH yes
HH it's cursory at best
DH don't agree no

HH - SM failed to engage with issues raised and neither did you
DH - not correct
HH - larger topic so good time to break?
J resume at two o'clock. Remind on break that you remain on oath. No discussion.

Also ED didn’t work in core Defra or Defra group. ED worked for the land registry (which is a non ministerial department) which isn’t even part of Defra group so she definitely couldn’t see the internal stuff. So why Sarah Homer’s office is sending her stuff is very odd, unless it was an official communication relating to her government network role.

And let’s take the analogy further. Demanding your birth certificate gets changed so that your place of birth is now York, rather than Basingstoke, because you feel like you should have been born there, and insisting that the changed document means it really did happen.

Exactly. He's the same as every man I know. Even after the shocking sight of a women boxer being battered by a man in the Olympics, they're still oblivious.

HH expects him to have taken 'training' in being a trans ally so he could understand the nature of the grievance. Instead he has simply followed the rules and applied them with impartiality. He has had to use his own judgment on what is objectively offensive; he can't be expected to adopt a trans eye view or its terms of assessing offence.

The straight forward answers this witness is giving compared to the previous is quite telling.

Also, this is his day job (and frankly, not even that). He doesn't take it home with him, unlike the other witnesses we've seen. His hobbies include sailing and hill walking (or similar things) not doxxing GC people on the internet. If it turns out he made a mistake in his review .... meh. So what?

Yes, cf his earlier reply to the suggestion that gender ideology was a burning issue in DEFRA
HH - going to suggest that this was one of the most contentious matters facing Defra at this time and it was inconc that it wasn't mentioned
DH can't deny it wasn't mentioned but can't remember being engaged or aware..

😁

^HH - agree that appeal is detailed.
DH it is
HH your outcome letter, a page and a half.
DH yes
HH it's cursory at best
DH don't agree no^

People with an axe to grind will always chuck in a massively long, complex grievance, probably with the help of AI. The fact that the response is shorter than the initial grievance is not a negative indicator of quality

I foresee many SARs in EDs future re whose details she held, for what purpose, how it information was held etc

On the 2022 2023 weekly HR meetings I imagine a lot of that was taken up with Covid recovery, getting people back into offices, dealing with long term sickness etc

While it's quiet (has everyone lost interweb connection?), now I've seen them side by side, they're not that similar except for the lovely colour scheme. Wimbledon is the one on the...?...left? No...the other left.

This is David Hallam, reviewer of the second grievance appeal. His evidence is out of events order because he isn’t available next week.

His job was to review that the grievance procedure had been carried out correctly, and the conclusions drawn were supported by the evidence. He did that. His job was not to go through the first and second grievance in detail, that work had already been done. Tinkerbell’s insistence that SEEN be disbanded was the recommendation that was deemed to be unreasonable, as rights between opposing sides (GI v GC) had to be balanced. Seems that’s what he did.

And yes, as unbelievable as it sounds, stuff was leaked from some pretty high up offices to Emma Dunn. Emma Dunn lied throughout her testimony.

If I can read between the lines, the appeal response was “yeah, no, still batshit”.

It sounds like DH is a sensible witness, but of a relief.

And speaking of DHs, mine is bringing me this in the absence of dark chocolate Tunnocks!

Yes the appeal needed to be on the topic of the process OR new evidence. So unless there was any new evidence, his job was to review the process.

When I dealt with appeals of any nature, the appelant had to detail which it was, new evidence or process. So presumably that was detailed in the appeal request and he followed that process as detailed in their internal processes.

For the observers in the thread, when TT are adding exclamation marks to EDs answers, has she been answering bluntly, in a heated manner? Shouting?

Lunch break comments:

(1) DH is a proper grown-up
(2) DH is giving clear, concise answers to the questions he is asked
(3) DH is not inflicting on others an inane internal monologue on the bundles. See (1).
(4) DH is approximately dressed in business attire
(5) DH is not trying to suck up to the judge. See (1).

From a SEEN perspective, it's not really important if he stuffed up the review or not.

It is important that, regardless of whether the grievance(s) and their subsequent appeals were conducted correctly or fairly, that the recommendation that SEEN be disbanded was not one that could reasonably have been made nor with which the department could have complied.

Not shouting as such, but raised voice, fast, lots of tone and emphasis. Imagine a stroppy teenager and not a woman approaching her 50s. The opposite of the most recent witness who has been polite, calm and considered in his responses.

It's really great when you and others like Critical condition give us context to what is going on in the tribunal. And again thanks to all who are doing the sterling work keeping us up to date, plus Tribunal Tweets too.

Yes indeed. ST failed twice to get Defra to disband SEEN, hence this tribunal.