6/ The UK is being taken to the ECtHR by Dr Peto, for violations of ECHR Articles 6, + 13 & 14 for discriminating against the disabled and minorities in court processes, denying them a fair trial.
And for violating ECHR Articles 6, 8, 10, +13 & 14 regarding the whistleblowing element of the case.

5/ The Equal Treatment Bench Book (which gives advice to judges on avoiding discrimination) is voluntary it needs to become statutory
Nobody should lose their rights in court because of disability or lack of legal representation. #DisabilityRights #accesstojustice 🧵

4/ It was only after permission to appeal was refused, that the Claimant discovered that she should have received a draft of the original judgement (under 40E) to correct errors & the Judge’s misunderstanding of who was responsible for the confusing bundles.
No further appeal is allowed.
🧵

3/ The judge withheld the draft judgment from the disabled Claimant despite the court rules saying all sides should have a copy (Practice Directions 40E).
In the finalised-judgement did not address the Claimant’s case and sanctioned her with costs citing how difficult it was to understand her. 🧵

2/ The Judge wrongly assumed that the confusing trial bundles was down to the disability of the Litigant in Person (LiP). In fact, the Respondent had packed the bundles with irrelevant papers + omitted relevant ones to make it harder for the disabled Claimant to refer to it during the hearing. 🧵

it does affect you.
The group was closed down
other people had their posts edited or falsified to make it appear they were holding an antisemitic conversation

It says it all. We will have a consultation but only read those which agree with a transphobic agenda

Particularly so in the Labour Party & agents given the court cases it embarked upon.

Going back to other ECHR violations. If witnesses are deterred from disclosing evidence of crimes & GDPR breaches, then there is no protection for victims.
Here case trans people lost their Art.8 right to privacy.

Once a s170(2) defence is rejected & ICO staff warn the whistleblower about committing a further s170(1) offence, then a whistleblower/ witness is not going to risk a criminal trial which they could not win detecting, obtaining, & disclosing more evidence of crimes, breaches, or wrongdoing...

6-years ago, the criminal Court of Appeal reserved its Judgment on whether a s170(2) defence was so hard to prove it is incompatible with the ECHR Article 6 right to a fair trial. [para 55 of [2019] EWCA Crim 2].

The impact on the ECHR rights of victims & whistleblowers happens long before a trial.

There is no warning on the ICO's webpage for whistleblowers that they'll have to prove a s170(2) defence. [It only refers to complying with PIDA].

So the whistle blower has already submitted their evidence & committed the s170(1) offence by the time ICO staff warn them & require a s170(2) defence.

Who decides if the 'particular circumstances justified' whistleblowing?

Until the Courts give guidance, or the ICO publishes guidance, then ICO staff are free to arbitrarily decide what whistleblowing is justified and criminalise the rest.

In practice this criminalises protecting demonised groups.

A whistle blower must prove both the SUBJECTIVE and objective element of their defence, to the harder legal burden of proof, without a defence of 'reasonably believing' they met the tests.

E.g. s170(2c) "IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, [whistle blowing] was JUSTIFIED in the public interest."

Criminalising Whistleblowing.

In 2018 MPs warned that until the courts gave guidance on interpreting the meaning and requirement of the s170(2) DPA, whistle blowers will face uncertainty.
parliamentlive.tv/event/index/...

7 year on and their is still no Court guidance or published ICO guidance.

The consequences affect:
•Trans peoples' right to know their data was breached.

•Criminal uncertainty for whistleblowers detecting & providing evidence of DPA crimes & GDPR breaches.

•Whether the ICO is require to enforce GDPR & data crimes when there committed as part of political culture wars.

An Appeal Court ruling is expected to become public soon, after some slip errors are corrected.

It has consequences for us.

Given the hostile atmosphere and press briefings it is strongly suggested that you protect your data. Links to template SARs at the end.

drive.google.com/file/d/17nZg...

Template SAR & GDPR Articles 18 & 19 requests.

Labour Party-
docs.google.com/document/d/1...

LGBT+ Labour-
docs.google.com/document/d/1...