2013 ET Claim against 4, New Square Chambers
1. In 2008 C issued an ET claim [2203561/2008] against R at 4NS, which is currently under appeal [A2/0082].
2. C raised issues arising out of the ET claim / judgment, but on 17.01.13 was expelled for allegedly making "unfounded" allegations, and refusing to sign Chambers cross-indemnity to indemnify Sue Carr (SC) / Head of Chambers for future claims like C's ET claim. All Members of Chambers are plainly guilty of victimisation etc.
3. Whether the allegations C made were "unfounded" or not, they arose out of the ET claim of 2008; likewise the reasons for C' refusal to sign the cross-indemnity such as a further unlawful act / discrimination / breach of the Code of Conduct by any Head of Chambers. In any event it was premature to allege "unfounded" etc.
4. C appealed the expulsion, all Members refused to mediate, and there were / are outstanding related complaints to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), police, Attorney-General, and Office of Judicial Complaints. C was therefore stunned by the expulsion of 17.01.13 and/or threats to destroy her belongings etc.
5. Contrary to ET Judgment (J) paragraph 303, each Member, past and present, knows (a) No Member appointed Jeremy Stuart-Smith (JSS) ever as (secret) EOO before C's ET claim (b) In 2009 for the first time JSS and R fabricated a secret Member as EOO, as it had been a mandatory requirement of the Bar's Code to have a Member as EOO in a high priority role from 2005, which they concealed from the ET with key documents (c) It was perjury to state that (i) JSS received training in 2005 before his EOO appointment or that (ii) JSS handed over his EOO role to Nick Davidson QC (ND) and Clare Dixon (CED) in 2009 etc.
6. All Members, past and present, are also plainly guilty of breaches of the Equality Act (EA) including:
(a) Concealment of data about C since 2008, as a result of C's ET claim - plain victimisation and differential treatment. They falsely alleged (such as on 18.05.12) the data is "privileged", not clarified the basis for the privilege, how internal documents since 2008 may be privileged only from C, and are plainly aiding unlawful acts, breaching their over-riding duty to the administration of justice, concealing their knowledge, etc.
(b) Accessory liability - desisting from making enquiry / aiding unlawful acts, despite the Bar's mandatory requirements, ND / CED / DAC solicitors evidence, EOO's request to JSS to desist from C's affairs, etc
(c) Exacerbating C's personal injury / disability - including by the draconian expulsion from 17.01.13
(d) Harassment / violating C's dignity / victimisation - including by failing to respond to C's emails of 2012 despite chase-ups, differential treatment because of C's ET claim etc, failing to expel / take any disciplinary action against white R / JSS / SC / dishonest racist clerks etc, expelling C when C has done nothing wrong and has a right to raise genuine concerns or complaints, etc
(e) Aiding unlawful acts
7. In 2011 DAC solicitors disclosed relevant data concealed from the ET, and ought to have been disclosed by R in 2009, eg R's correspondence re Bar's mandatory requirements, JSS only trained after C's ET claim, etc
8. In 2011 ND and CED emailed C they had no recollection JSS was the predecessor as EOO, and there was no handover to them, proving JSS / R's perjury / Contempt. Thereafter JSS / R / others tampered with CED's evidence and CED refused to answer C's emails to her, including as to who "reminded" her after 16 days.
9. ND as EOO suggested the Chairman of the Bar appoint Panels to consider complaints, and C agreed. JSS / Members extra-ordinarily refused the EOO's suggestion, and failed to make reasonable adjustments. Ben Hubble (BH) as EOO then wrote to JSS expressly sought him / R to desist from any involvement in any matter concerning C, but JSS / R / SC in contempt of the EOO's requests and their duty to make reasonable adjustments, continued to meddle in C's affairs, harass her and exacerbate C's disability / violate her dignity. JSS / SC appointed Panels, tampered with C's clerk's emails to C, sent C a written warning via C's clerk, despite BH's request to desist from any involvement, and thus further violated C's dignity at C's workplace. No white Member of Chambers has been treated in this way, or their clerk complicit / used to violate their dignity.
10. BH / Sian Mirchandani (SXM) dishonestly alleged to C in 2011 that JSS as EOO accorded with their "general recollection", when before C's ET claim, they had no knowledge JSS was ever appointed EOO by any Member, and there was no documentation. They refused to answer "yes" or "no" to their knowledge, or to disclose their instructions to DAC solicitors / the advice of DAC to them, despite their over-riding duty to the administration of justice, etc.
11. DAC solicitors refused to disclose the instructions and/or advice to BH / SXM / all Members, despite their over-riding duty to the administration of justice and/or BH / SXM / all Members have refused to waive client-lawyer privilege and/or disclose any of the documents in the interests of justice. The ET must seek disclosure in the interests of justice.
12. C repeatedly requested SC / Members to ensure SC's desisted from communicating with C, but SC continued to harass, bully and intimidate C, and violate C's dignity (despite J662). The Executive Committee and/or all Members have failed to protect C / her interests, despite C's emails to them.
13. Patrick Lawrence (PL) expressly advised C, including by email of 13.06.12, he would recommend Chambers pay C's Practising Certificate / BMIF insurance cover / Bar Council requirements, whilst she remained unable to work / disabled, and C relied on his representations to her detriment. When the Bar Council chased C in 2013, PL did not respond to C's chase-ups.
14. On 21.07.12 David Sears (DS) incompetently / absurdly reported C's allegations were "wholly unjustified", without even referring to the Bar's mandatory requirements to have a known Member as EOO, or to ND / CED / DAC's evidence etc. DS then resigned from 4NS (despite having only joined 4NS after C's ET claim) and moved to Crown Office Chambers, which had previously taken on C's racist / dishonest clerk, Steve Purse (who had plainly perjured himself in 2009 in falsely alleging C's appeals to the LSC had been "disallowed" when in fact the LSC confirmed to JSS they had never been heard, and he had failed to chase-up the LSC timeously or at all - Members at 4NS have since requested C write-off her aged debt of some £100,000 and offered a mere £12,000 in compensation for their racist clerks' errors / differential treatment, which offer C refused). Crown Office Chambers, and their Head RL, have refused to expel Steve Purse or David Sears, or to take any disciplinary action, despite C's dignity continuing to be violated at her workplace at the Bar. By analogy, known dishonest paedophiles in wilful contempt of protective measures, continue to work with children, and all responsible for their continued employment with children, turn a blind eye.
15. C has obtained further witness statements to evidence the contempt / perjury / aiding unlawful acts of all Members. An ex-member, Bernard Livesey (BL), has confirmed to C there was no notification that JSS was ever EOO, prior to C's ET claim, but BL has refused to disclose internal discussions about C since 2008, even though his Head of Chambers accepts they cannot be privileged and BL has an over-riding duty to disclose them. Rival Chambers have confirmed their Chambers complied with the mandatory requirements of the Bar Council and all their Members were informed of the EOO requirement and who was EOO by emails from 2004 and thereafter.
16. C is making further enquiries to evidence all Members dishonesty / aiding unlawful acts, and C is liasing with the Attorney-General, who is considering bringing Contempt of Court proceedings against them. The police have confirmed to C the evidence of their perjury / concealment is plain, and criminal prosecutions are inevitable against them - it seems JSS dishonestly failed to inform the Queen / Lord Chancellor / all concerned of the outstanding complaints against him.
17. The expulsion by all Members from 17.01.13 has devastated C, violated her dignity, and her injury / disability has been severely exacerbated. Likewise, the failure by each past and present Member to disclose internal discussions about C, concealed since 2008, or to address the data concealed from the ET in 2009. Each past and present Member is plainly guilty of victimising C, and/or aiding unlawful acts, which is continuing.
18. Equality Act Questionnaires have been served, but to date, they have been evasively and/or not replied to. The ET must ensure each Question is Replied to in the interests of justice, and the ET must make adverse inferences against them.
19. To further evidence the overt racism of 4NS, race discrimination claims have been independently made by 4NS's client, against Charles Phipps, a white Member, but to date has been concealed from the Courts.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Jalil Asif (JA) email of 03.09.09 to C stated “Your solicitors are welcome to speak to me if they wish, but they may take the view there is likely to be a serious conflict of interest given that, if your claim were to succeed, I would probably have to contribute to any award that was made in your favour”.
Past and present Members of 4NS, including JSS, DS, JA, BL, etc are in plain contempt of their over-riding duty to the Court, and are allowing their personal interests and/or alleged duties to third parties, to conflict.
In 2010 the ET found C had proved a prima facie case of race discrimination [J526], and the burden shifted to R but
(a) The ET failed to address the wholesale failure to act in the interests of ethnic minorities / C, to sack the clerks with racist attitudes and those who condoned it such as R4, R2, Executive Committee of 2000, and JSS (whether secret EOO before the ET claim, or Head of Chambers at the time of the ET Judgment), to not conceal matters from ethnic minorities such as the QC's recommendation to dismiss and the further overt race incidents, to fail to comply with the Bar's Equality Code before and after each overt racist incident in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 all under racist R4's watch, or to appoint a known Member as EOO as high priority, despite the deeply offensive environment to C with her distinctive Anglo-Indian accent [J464].
(b) The ET failed to address inequitable treatment of C / relative failure (Langstaff J accepted this was the correct test in 2011) rather than "deliberate neglect" or "total or substantial failure" [J501, J555, J577].
(c) The ET accepted R's bare evidence, despite the dearth of expected documentation / R's concealment / C's lack of knowledge / false Replies to the Questionnaires / lack of independent witnesses to support R's fanciful / defamatory case. The bare evidence was plainly untrue such as racist clerk Steve Purse's evidence outlined above, or JSS / R's fabricated evidence in 2009 of a secret EOO trained in 2005 handing over to ND / CED in 2009.
(d) The ET failed to consider the cause and/or exacerbation of C's illness [J478] and/or to address the medical evidence it was likely to have been caused by R1 / R4 on 06.02.06.
(e) The discrimination was continuing including in relation to complaint 16, which the ET accepted may have merit [J663].
(f) The ET wrongly directed itself that intention or targeting was relevant to whether C suffered a detriment (The EAT ruled in 2012 that the ET made an error of law in this regard).
(g) The quality of C's work was irrelevant once 4NS failed to train clerks from the outset or to comply with the Equality Code / mandatory requirements of a known EOO, and/or in any event R's case was speculative / defamatory and unable to discharge the legal burden on them.
There must be a full review / new trial, with disclosure of the concealed data, in the interests of justice before a new, unbiased ET, with an equitable history of finding in favour of ethnic minorities like C.
2. C raised issues arising out of the ET claim / judgment, but on 17.01.13 was expelled for allegedly making "unfounded" allegations, and refusing to sign Chambers cross-indemnity to indemnify Sue Carr (SC) / Head of Chambers for future claims like C's ET claim. All Members of Chambers are plainly guilty of victimisation etc.
3. Whether the allegations C made were "unfounded" or not, they arose out of the ET claim of 2008; likewise the reasons for C' refusal to sign the cross-indemnity such as a further unlawful act / discrimination / breach of the Code of Conduct by any Head of Chambers. In any event it was premature to allege "unfounded" etc.
4. C appealed the expulsion, all Members refused to mediate, and there were / are outstanding related complaints to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), police, Attorney-General, and Office of Judicial Complaints. C was therefore stunned by the expulsion of 17.01.13 and/or threats to destroy her belongings etc.
5. Contrary to ET Judgment (J) paragraph 303, each Member, past and present, knows (a) No Member appointed Jeremy Stuart-Smith (JSS) ever as (secret) EOO before C's ET claim (b) In 2009 for the first time JSS and R fabricated a secret Member as EOO, as it had been a mandatory requirement of the Bar's Code to have a Member as EOO in a high priority role from 2005, which they concealed from the ET with key documents (c) It was perjury to state that (i) JSS received training in 2005 before his EOO appointment or that (ii) JSS handed over his EOO role to Nick Davidson QC (ND) and Clare Dixon (CED) in 2009 etc.
6. All Members, past and present, are also plainly guilty of breaches of the Equality Act (EA) including:
(a) Concealment of data about C since 2008, as a result of C's ET claim - plain victimisation and differential treatment. They falsely alleged (such as on 18.05.12) the data is "privileged", not clarified the basis for the privilege, how internal documents since 2008 may be privileged only from C, and are plainly aiding unlawful acts, breaching their over-riding duty to the administration of justice, concealing their knowledge, etc.
(b) Accessory liability - desisting from making enquiry / aiding unlawful acts, despite the Bar's mandatory requirements, ND / CED / DAC solicitors evidence, EOO's request to JSS to desist from C's affairs, etc
(c) Exacerbating C's personal injury / disability - including by the draconian expulsion from 17.01.13
(d) Harassment / violating C's dignity / victimisation - including by failing to respond to C's emails of 2012 despite chase-ups, differential treatment because of C's ET claim etc, failing to expel / take any disciplinary action against white R / JSS / SC / dishonest racist clerks etc, expelling C when C has done nothing wrong and has a right to raise genuine concerns or complaints, etc
(e) Aiding unlawful acts
7. In 2011 DAC solicitors disclosed relevant data concealed from the ET, and ought to have been disclosed by R in 2009, eg R's correspondence re Bar's mandatory requirements, JSS only trained after C's ET claim, etc
8. In 2011 ND and CED emailed C they had no recollection JSS was the predecessor as EOO, and there was no handover to them, proving JSS / R's perjury / Contempt. Thereafter JSS / R / others tampered with CED's evidence and CED refused to answer C's emails to her, including as to who "reminded" her after 16 days.
9. ND as EOO suggested the Chairman of the Bar appoint Panels to consider complaints, and C agreed. JSS / Members extra-ordinarily refused the EOO's suggestion, and failed to make reasonable adjustments. Ben Hubble (BH) as EOO then wrote to JSS expressly sought him / R to desist from any involvement in any matter concerning C, but JSS / R / SC in contempt of the EOO's requests and their duty to make reasonable adjustments, continued to meddle in C's affairs, harass her and exacerbate C's disability / violate her dignity. JSS / SC appointed Panels, tampered with C's clerk's emails to C, sent C a written warning via C's clerk, despite BH's request to desist from any involvement, and thus further violated C's dignity at C's workplace. No white Member of Chambers has been treated in this way, or their clerk complicit / used to violate their dignity.
10. BH / Sian Mirchandani (SXM) dishonestly alleged to C in 2011 that JSS as EOO accorded with their "general recollection", when before C's ET claim, they had no knowledge JSS was ever appointed EOO by any Member, and there was no documentation. They refused to answer "yes" or "no" to their knowledge, or to disclose their instructions to DAC solicitors / the advice of DAC to them, despite their over-riding duty to the administration of justice, etc.
11. DAC solicitors refused to disclose the instructions and/or advice to BH / SXM / all Members, despite their over-riding duty to the administration of justice and/or BH / SXM / all Members have refused to waive client-lawyer privilege and/or disclose any of the documents in the interests of justice. The ET must seek disclosure in the interests of justice.
12. C repeatedly requested SC / Members to ensure SC's desisted from communicating with C, but SC continued to harass, bully and intimidate C, and violate C's dignity (despite J662). The Executive Committee and/or all Members have failed to protect C / her interests, despite C's emails to them.
13. Patrick Lawrence (PL) expressly advised C, including by email of 13.06.12, he would recommend Chambers pay C's Practising Certificate / BMIF insurance cover / Bar Council requirements, whilst she remained unable to work / disabled, and C relied on his representations to her detriment. When the Bar Council chased C in 2013, PL did not respond to C's chase-ups.
14. On 21.07.12 David Sears (DS) incompetently / absurdly reported C's allegations were "wholly unjustified", without even referring to the Bar's mandatory requirements to have a known Member as EOO, or to ND / CED / DAC's evidence etc. DS then resigned from 4NS (despite having only joined 4NS after C's ET claim) and moved to Crown Office Chambers, which had previously taken on C's racist / dishonest clerk, Steve Purse (who had plainly perjured himself in 2009 in falsely alleging C's appeals to the LSC had been "disallowed" when in fact the LSC confirmed to JSS they had never been heard, and he had failed to chase-up the LSC timeously or at all - Members at 4NS have since requested C write-off her aged debt of some £100,000 and offered a mere £12,000 in compensation for their racist clerks' errors / differential treatment, which offer C refused). Crown Office Chambers, and their Head RL, have refused to expel Steve Purse or David Sears, or to take any disciplinary action, despite C's dignity continuing to be violated at her workplace at the Bar. By analogy, known dishonest paedophiles in wilful contempt of protective measures, continue to work with children, and all responsible for their continued employment with children, turn a blind eye.
15. C has obtained further witness statements to evidence the contempt / perjury / aiding unlawful acts of all Members. An ex-member, Bernard Livesey (BL), has confirmed to C there was no notification that JSS was ever EOO, prior to C's ET claim, but BL has refused to disclose internal discussions about C since 2008, even though his Head of Chambers accepts they cannot be privileged and BL has an over-riding duty to disclose them. Rival Chambers have confirmed their Chambers complied with the mandatory requirements of the Bar Council and all their Members were informed of the EOO requirement and who was EOO by emails from 2004 and thereafter.
16. C is making further enquiries to evidence all Members dishonesty / aiding unlawful acts, and C is liasing with the Attorney-General, who is considering bringing Contempt of Court proceedings against them. The police have confirmed to C the evidence of their perjury / concealment is plain, and criminal prosecutions are inevitable against them - it seems JSS dishonestly failed to inform the Queen / Lord Chancellor / all concerned of the outstanding complaints against him.
17. The expulsion by all Members from 17.01.13 has devastated C, violated her dignity, and her injury / disability has been severely exacerbated. Likewise, the failure by each past and present Member to disclose internal discussions about C, concealed since 2008, or to address the data concealed from the ET in 2009. Each past and present Member is plainly guilty of victimising C, and/or aiding unlawful acts, which is continuing.
18. Equality Act Questionnaires have been served, but to date, they have been evasively and/or not replied to. The ET must ensure each Question is Replied to in the interests of justice, and the ET must make adverse inferences against them.
19. To further evidence the overt racism of 4NS, race discrimination claims have been independently made by 4NS's client, against Charles Phipps, a white Member, but to date has been concealed from the Courts.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Jalil Asif (JA) email of 03.09.09 to C stated “Your solicitors are welcome to speak to me if they wish, but they may take the view there is likely to be a serious conflict of interest given that, if your claim were to succeed, I would probably have to contribute to any award that was made in your favour”.
Past and present Members of 4NS, including JSS, DS, JA, BL, etc are in plain contempt of their over-riding duty to the Court, and are allowing their personal interests and/or alleged duties to third parties, to conflict.
In 2010 the ET found C had proved a prima facie case of race discrimination [J526], and the burden shifted to R but
(a) The ET failed to address the wholesale failure to act in the interests of ethnic minorities / C, to sack the clerks with racist attitudes and those who condoned it such as R4, R2, Executive Committee of 2000, and JSS (whether secret EOO before the ET claim, or Head of Chambers at the time of the ET Judgment), to not conceal matters from ethnic minorities such as the QC's recommendation to dismiss and the further overt race incidents, to fail to comply with the Bar's Equality Code before and after each overt racist incident in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 all under racist R4's watch, or to appoint a known Member as EOO as high priority, despite the deeply offensive environment to C with her distinctive Anglo-Indian accent [J464].
(b) The ET failed to address inequitable treatment of C / relative failure (Langstaff J accepted this was the correct test in 2011) rather than "deliberate neglect" or "total or substantial failure" [J501, J555, J577].
(c) The ET accepted R's bare evidence, despite the dearth of expected documentation / R's concealment / C's lack of knowledge / false Replies to the Questionnaires / lack of independent witnesses to support R's fanciful / defamatory case. The bare evidence was plainly untrue such as racist clerk Steve Purse's evidence outlined above, or JSS / R's fabricated evidence in 2009 of a secret EOO trained in 2005 handing over to ND / CED in 2009.
(d) The ET failed to consider the cause and/or exacerbation of C's illness [J478] and/or to address the medical evidence it was likely to have been caused by R1 / R4 on 06.02.06.
(e) The discrimination was continuing including in relation to complaint 16, which the ET accepted may have merit [J663].
(f) The ET wrongly directed itself that intention or targeting was relevant to whether C suffered a detriment (The EAT ruled in 2012 that the ET made an error of law in this regard).
(g) The quality of C's work was irrelevant once 4NS failed to train clerks from the outset or to comply with the Equality Code / mandatory requirements of a known EOO, and/or in any event R's case was speculative / defamatory and unable to discharge the legal burden on them.
There must be a full review / new trial, with disclosure of the concealed data, in the interests of justice before a new, unbiased ET, with an equitable history of finding in favour of ethnic minorities like C.
Comments
Post a Comment