Forget the J Depp debacle and read about the barrister suing her chambers. This fascinating case involves a barrister suing her chambers and the campaign group Stonewall.
Allison Bailey accuses the charity of bullying the chambers into disciplining her and preventing her from getting work because of her so-called gender critical views. Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers deny any wrongdoing.
But the highlight of a day at the remote tribunal hearing earlier this week came when a Stonewall official refused to give evidence unless he could bring his mum … and his support dog. As a doggy person I completely understand.
Read the article below from The Times.
London lawyers have been transfixed this spring by a humble employment tribunal — one that goes to the heart of both the trans debate and the ethics of the legal profession.
Garden Court, one of the country’s most prominent chambers of human rights and civil liberties barristers, is in a bitter battle over allegations involving transphobia and claims that it was in the pocket of Stonewall, the UK’s leading LGBT rights organisation.
The chambers and the charity are being sued by Allison Bailey, a lesbian criminal law barrister, who claims that senior lawyers at Garden Court discriminated against her — to the point where she lost a significant amount of earnings — because she had said publicly that sex was immutable and that men could not become women.
Wider evidence has emerged during the four-week hearing that some female barristers at the chambers claimed that, quite apart from its progressive and diverse image, Garden Court was rife with sex discrimination that put them on lower earnings than their male counterparts. Further evidence showed that senior barristers at the chambers routinely posted inflammatory comments on social media.
Arguably most damaging, it has been alleged that Garden Court is a fundamentally badly managed chambers with its QC heads and other senior lawyers having told the tribunal they were on holiday, too busy, looking after their children — or even based abroad — at crucial times in the dispute with Bailey.
As one lawyer said as the main evidence session finished this week: “The trial has been reputationally appalling for both Garden Court and Stonewall.”
Garden Court and Stonewall have denied any wrongdoing and are defending the claims.
Evidence during the hearing, which finished on Thursday, has been lurid and fractious, with barristers who are used to asking questions in court being forced into the uncomfortable position of facing a grilling in the witness box.
There have also been moments when the hearing slipped into the realm of the bizarre. One witness, Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall’s head of trans inclusion, told Sarah Goodman, the tribunal judge, that he required a support worker, his mother and a support dog to be with him while giving evidence.
On another occasion Ben Cooper, QC, Bailey’s lawyer, questioned a former senior figure at the Bar Council, which represents the profession in England and Wales, who supported the principle of a training session in which trans women who self-identified as lesbians were “coached” on how to “coerce” female lesbians into having sex with transpeople with penises.
Bailey says that she will not comment on the case until a ruling is given. The parties are expected to return, remotely, to the Central London tribunal on June 20 for closing statements and judgment is likely to be reserved to a later date.
Sarah Phillimore, a family law barrister in Bristol, who has been following the hearing, described it as “a reputational car crash” for Garden Court, which until now was held in high regard. “They talk the talk,” Phillimore said of the chambers, adding: “They give a picture of being a respectable, well-run, ethical establishment, but when the rubber hit the road, they crumbled.”
More generally, Phillimore said the case offered salutary lessons for the barristers’ profession. “If you leave the management to a group of self- employed people who are doing their demanding day jobs, inevitably things are going to crack — no one had time to consider things properly,” she said.
Several outcomes are possible when the tribunal panel gives its ruling. The case is legally interesting because despite Bailey being a self-employed barrister, she has been allowed to bring a claim in the employment tribunal since under equality law, chambers are viewed as trade associations.
Bailey is also able to sue Stonewall because the Equality Act 2010 states that it is unlawful to induce, cause or influence prohibited conduct. In this case, it is alleged that Stonewall put pressure on Garden Court to discipline Bailey over her gender-critical comments.
Bailey could triumph over both Garden Court and Stonewall or only one, with damages awarded. Or she could lose the claim entirely.
Regardless of which way the ruling goes, the case has illustrated that the culture wars in the supposedly sedate Inns of Court over the fraught issue of transgenderism are only beginning.
A spokesman for Garden Court said that the chambers “strongly refute the claims made against us”. He added: “We have a professional obligation to investigate any complaints received by our chambers. Following an investigation in 2019 into complaints made about Ms Bailey’s social media posts, it was concluded that no action was necessary.”