The cross-examination of Prof Evans is not yet complete, and he is therefore legally unable to speak about his evidence.
Once the cross-examination has concluded, we will provide a full transcript of what was discussed in open court.
Although the website is currently disclosing limited information, visitor numbers are surging. It seems the best way to boost a website is to be targeted by Cambridge HR.
Thank you to everyone for your messages of support!
We apologise again — we still have not had time to split the Data Bundle so the files are not viewable on all platforms
We will do this as soon as we can, certainly over the weekend, if not before
Hang in on there, Wyn. The finish line is in sight now!
If there is anything that people outside can do to help, please let us know.
HR is the anti PR 🙄
I do wonder just how much of the work of the communications office is promoting the good work of scholars and how much of our resources are instead spent covering up bullying and harassment issues. I am guessing 50-50. But judging from the recent press it is possibly more? Does anyone know?
Is anyone still getting “waiting for the host to join”? (10.15am)
This is absolutely fascinating stuff. I was only able to get connected today and cannot follow the whole thing. Does anyone have an idea of when the cross examinations next week will be held and in what order? In other words is this part of the bundle download or has it been confirmed in prior days of the hearing? Or does anyone have at least a best guess or can update on here?
Yes joined briefly but really curious too when the best part starts – when are the big players getting their turn?
Professor Evans, next time they ask something offensive, ask them to repeat. And once they repeat, ask them to elaborate. You will see eyes rolling.
I am learning a lot from your case and I will defend mine with you in mind.
@SeeyouatFH – this is an excellent tactic as it briefly pauses the proceedings for everyone listening to take in what they have just said and makes them have to think on their feet and try to substantiate their low-level comment, which they thought was clever.
“up hill and down dale” – I am very impressed by the lack of legal arguments of R.
I was at ET today. I am frankly disgusted- the University KC had only one strategy: destroy Wyn Evans! What about the facts? Whatever the outcome UCam looks horrible! I hope newspapers will be on it!
My first experience attending an ET. It’s scary how nasty AR can be – “crocodile tears” is below the belt. Does this mean Wyn’s barrister will have to use kids gloves with the “unwell bullied” HoD then or be deemed to be bullying him as well!
True. Grossly inappropriate for a lawyer and not at all relvant to any stated purpose of establishing facts. I think the mask really slipped there. Clear who is the crocodile. Awful.
Did that really happen? If a professor at my uni was exposed on camera saying what AR said today to a student victim of abuse then they would be fired — immediately! How is this being normalized? And Cambridge is actually paying her to do this to one of its own staff which is even worse. I can’t believe this is happening.
And to a man who stepped up to defend a woman colleague too right? I find this whole macabre show grotesque and honestly just simply fucking scary.
Indeed, and anyone that isn’t genuinely frightened by what folks are witnessing may not yet fully understand the problem that has now taken grip right across the sector.
Keep in mind too, that before it even gets to Tribunal stage the victim or whistleblower has usually already been put through many *years* of hellish abuse, and from many different directions.
I never saw a tribunal before and couldn’t watch all of this one because I got so upset with the university and their barrister. I am really glad they opened it up as I had no idea our court system was like this. Now I understand how awful it is for survivors to face their abusers. I thought the way it would work is that at court the victim would finally be able to get their abusers to answer to their deeds but instead it is like the abused individual (Prof Evans) is being put on trial instead by Cambridge. God knows if I would ever dare to report being subject to any kind of mistreatment if the result was having my employer reverse the process and subject me to this kind of unfair witch trial. The way Cambridge and the barrister is behaving towards him is exactly the reason why more women don’t come forward.
Kind of amazes me that someone in that position of power could be so lacking in empathy
This shows you just how much hate they have for Wyn. All because he holds a mirror to their acts and they cannot accept what they see there. But now we all see it too.
Not only that but they wasted a week and a half of ET time hiding in order to avoid showing their own faces! Totally the opposite of how I thought this system was supposed to work. I thought they were the defendants so when do they have to defend themselves or do they plan on never doing so?
Don’t worry it’s normal for claimant X to come first and the others come later. I know it seems unfair now; but in some ways it is better that way, as the claimant gets over the hard part, first while things for the respondent(s) are a bit more drawn out.
Hope this helps.
I have attended a large number of hearings, but I was not present at this particular one and did not hear the alleged remarks myself. In those circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate for me to offer any view on what may or may not have been said. For the avoidance of doubt, I write solely in a personal capacity, not as an employee of any firm nor in any professional capacity, and nothing in this email should be treated as legal advice or as comment on this or any other specific case.
Subject to that important caveat, it is fair to say in general terms that cross‑examination is inherently robust. Counsel are entitled, and indeed often required, to challenge a witness’s credibility, including by putting it squarely that the witness is not telling the truth or that aspects of their presentation, including apparent distress, are exaggerated or insincere.
However, that exercise must always be conducted in accordance with professional conduct obligations, which include not abusing or humiliating a witness. A remark in open court to the effect that a claimant’s emotional reaction amounted to “crocodile tears” would not be regarded as standard or routine advocacy, particularly in a case involving allegations of bullying or abuse, and would generally be seen as highly confrontational and potentially disrespectful.
Speaking again only at the level of general professional standards, if such a comment were made in that context, it could well give rise to concern that the line into improper or bullying questioning had been crossed. Many practitioners would regard that sort of conduct as potentially warranting consideration of a complaint to the Bar Standards Board and, where a solicitor‑advocate was involved, possibly also to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
I very much hope that these general observations are not in fact relevant to the incident you have in mind, and I proceed on the basis that they are not, so that nothing I have written is taken to express any view on the particular facts to be determined in that matter.
No way any female survivor would be subject to such verbal abuse in open court.
Just a couple of comments from someone familiar with the Tribunal system:
1. Claimants go first because they are the ones presenting their case before the Tribunal.
2. The cross-examination of Prof Evans is a consequence of the common law adversarial system. Cross-examination inevitably will require Counsel to ask leading questions and, yes, to suggest that the witness is making things up. It can be upsetting, but unless we (as a country) move to a more continental/inquisitorial system, there is not much one can do.
Thanks for all comments and support
It is wonderful and sustaining, please continue posting
A number of comments have been unapproved — please be assured they will be re-approved when it is legally safe & compliant to do so