Phillimore: Heartened by decision
The Bar Standards Board’s independent reviewer has upheld its decision to reject the Good Law Project’s (GLP) complaint against a barrister over her social media posts about a trans woman.
It is the latest stage in the ongoing battle between GLP founder Jolyon Maugham KC and Sarah Phillimore, who is suing the high-profile silk for defamation.
The GLP complained to the BSB last August about a series of social media posts that Ms Phillimore made about a trans woman.
The family law barrister, who practises from St John’s Chambers in Bristol, posts regularly on X as a private individual, not as a lawyer, reaching an audience of around 45,000 followers.
The GLP submitted more than 50 of Ms Phillimore’s posts to the BSB as evidence of how she had attacked a trans woman online, misgendered and deadnamed her, shared photos and used graphic language about her genitals.
To protect the person’s identity, the GLP refer to the trans woman as Kate. The GLP believe Ms Phillimore singled Kate out “for cruel treatment”.
But in April the regulator rejected the complaint, concluding that Ms Phillimore “has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs”.
Ms Phillimore said she was not singling out this one trans woman, to inflict any kind of cruelty. The BSB agreed.
The GLP argued that Ms Phillimore’s posts were “likely to diminish the trust and confidence” placed in her and the profession.
The BSB said it did not believe that the posts were “either seriously offensive or otherwise a potential breach of CD5 [core duty 5 – upholding public trust] by being harassing, bullying, victimising or discriminating”.
The role of the independent reviewer is to consider challenges to the way the BSB made a decision.
But the reviewer found no faults, including in the way it balanced Ms Phillimore’s article 10 right to freedom of expression.
The reviewer noted that the exchanges came at a “heightened moment in time” for the transgender debate.
“I also bear in mind the online presence of [Kate] who has many thousands of followers and I note that she has also used highly insulting words and phrases about people who hold a different viewpoint to herself…
“This is significant with regards to the response by Ms Phillimore as it is clear that this was very much a two-sided interchange where both people felt passionately about their own viewpoints and their comments are highly charged and I consider unpleasant on both sides.”
The reviewer concluded that the BSB addressed the issues it had to correctly.
“I determine that the decision maker assessed the contextual factors that were key in this report including the absence of a professional relationship between the two women and the absence of the relevant power imbalance.
“The review did not disclose a material factual mistake, material misapplication of the Handbook or procedural error.”
Ms Phillimore said: “It is very heartening to see how far the BSB has come in a matter of only a few years – from manifestly unlawful attempts to fetter free speech to a firm and robust rejection of the Good Law Project’s renewed attempts.”
She was, however, unhappy that the reviewer described ‘Kate’ as a woman. “Mr Weddell is not a woman. That is the entire point of our dispute.
“I can grit my teeth and live with the female pronouns that litter the review, but would have preferred the reviewer to identify us by our names rather than show an unquestioning support for Mr Weddell’s assertion that he is in fact a woman.
“That position is not supported by material reality and it is not supported by law.”
In a statement, the GLP said: “We believe that the independent reviewer failed, as the regulator did, to take into account that barristers are meant to be held to a high standard of behaviour. And in our view, they did not appreciate the level of harm that can be and was caused by Phillimore’s relentless focus on one individual.
“Phillimore is entitled to her view – and to express said view – on trans rights. But we continue to believe that her targeting of Kate in dozens of abusive tweets fell well below the behaviour which ought to be expected of barristers.
“We will be reviewing the independent reviewer’s report with counsel and considering next steps.”
Ms Phillimore is using the CrowdJustice website to raise the funds she needs to sue Mr Maugham for defamation over a social media post from last August which accused her of leading “a campaign of harassment of a trans woman so wicked that she sought to take her own life”.
The barrister has raised £60,000 so far via Crowdjustice. Mr Maugham has said he will “vigorously” defend any libel action.
Leave a Comment