2/ Google Takeout (or any other method of exporting from Google Keep) does not provide the original stored data. Instead, it generates what we ordinarily call “reports” on the fly. So, the export cannot prove or disprove what was saved to the ☁️. That exercise is completely irrelevant as evidence.
3/ I previously wrote this: medium.com/@notashley/j... There are far too many way the metadata can lose meaning that the so-called expert cannot account for. He cannot claim to have made any genuine effort to replicate this.
4/ As a member of the chartered institute for computing (we caution against misuse of expert evidence after the Post Office scandal), I am bound by professional ethics. I can state unequivocally that Jim Borwick is not a member of our profession. And should not be allowed to give evidence.
Given that he has and it may influence the tribunal, what are potential recourses?
My instinct is that the panel (one judge and two CIPD members) would simply dismiss or disregard these conspiracy theory-like side issues. If this goes awry, the only recourse would be an appeal.
Thanks! I expect there will be an appeal whatever the outcome.
Recent history suggests institutions do not appeal in matters of trans rights
True. I suppose it depends what the tribunal actually finds. If it just finds that there was a procedural error, may be less likely to appeal. If it rules about sexual harassment or the like, an appeal seems more probable.
5/ I do not practice law in the UK, so in this case I can only comment on matters strictly within my own profession. Whether barristers and hate groups conspired to interfere with the administration of justice is not my concern and remains a question for further investigation.
I seem to recall in one case I was involved in the Judge asked for someone from the Register of Experts. Would/should one of those have not been called here?