That All Women Shortlist case?

OvaHere - I think that's a really good point. If some women, whether as individuals or small groups hadn't started to take a stand the situation good be much worse.

It's easy to jeer from the sidelines, and what would be more useful it to build up a shared knowledge.

And in this case the intentions of the indiviudal were really good.

And women who donated money in good faith were brilliant for doing so.

What seems to have gone wrong is the legal advice. If it was as some have suggested a no hoper from the start who were these professionals not making that clear?

Or were they hoping to set a precedent?

What has been happening more and more is that campaigning doesn't seem to get women's issues very far, so some are choosing the court route to try and set precedents to benefit us all.

And this case also raises the issue about political parties. Are they subject to any external scrutiny, or are they exempt because they are effectively a "club"?

Strange that one Jolyon Maugham QC supported it at the outset... so obviously not that risible a cause back then.

Really good point, Ovahere.

This case was a bit of a clusterfuck from the start for all the numerous reasons outlined by others.

I hold no animosity though because it was the case that kicked it all off and it made many of us realise we could self resource and raise funds to represent our interests. That alone was worth the price of admittance.

Whatever one thinks of JJ and her handling of this case her decision to make a stand has influenced many more successful cases and funding efforts that have followed.

Thank you Manderleyagain. For what it's worth I think it's probably just as well the JR failed at this point, Jennifer unfortunately had little goodwill left on which to launch any further crowdfunding.

At least the door is still open for legal action for if/when it comes up again. And apart from being spot on with time limits, I think the big lesson to be learned from this is that a group action will generally fare better when challenging a policy decision.

Is betsymoo known to post untruths on here all the time or something? I don't understand the hostility to her report of the hearing that she says she listened to, and which we know jj missed most of. As I read it, betsymoo's account was that the Jr has been refused (as jj said) but for other reasons, not because parties are never subject to Jr. That in itself wasn't a barrier. That doesn't contradict JJ's tweet.
I hope there will be a published judgement that we can read.

The other criticisms of the case are spot on from what I can tell. Disorganised & odd behaviour.
As non specialists and without knowing the individuals we can't know which cases have a good chance. We can give small amounts to get cases off the ground and then continue to support cases which seem to be progressing, or are at least sensible and professional in reporting back etc.

I agree. It was doomed to fail from the beginning and filing it so long out of time was bad too.
I have criticised the legal advice but to be fair to the legal team, it might be that JJ pushed for the case to be issued even though she was advised that the prospects of success were low. We just don’t know.

Hopefully, in the future, there will be more scrutiny of calls to donate money. It’s a shame that 30k was wasted when actions like Keira Bell’s case desperately needs funds for what is likely to be a long appeal process. She’s now up against aggressive people with deep pockets (Joly and his mob) and needs all the help she can get.

JJ should have spent a few thousand getting initial advice from a top QC specialising in discrimination law (not an immigration barrister, however well-meaning). Then, if she was advised that the prospects of success were good, she could have raised more. If the advice was not favourable, she should have abandoned the action and returned any remaining funds.

As a person, she seems all over the place, fawning over rampant misogynist and rape-apologist George Galloway and routinely blocking or swearing at women who asked about the case. I also think property development is quite an interesting career choice for someone who claims to be a die-hard socialist and addresses people as comrade.

The crowdfunder was hosted on GoFundMe rather than e.g. CrowdJustice which is specifically for court cases. The lady doing it all sounds well-meaning but very disorganized. I am not a lawyer, but would have thought this better challenged by an individual passed over for selection in favour of a transwoman? They could then argue direct or indirect discrimination depending on whether the transwoman had a GRC or not.

Jennifer James QC/barrister said after the judge made his ruling that she would like to submit an appeal and started giving her grounds for doing so. The judge interrupted to explain he did not have the power to grant an appeal and said she would have to submit an appeal separately.

Betsymoo seems to have been listening to a completely different case yesterday from the one Jennifer James heard.

Yet the tweet you attached shows Jennifer James saying she only caught the first 10 mins of the hearing and then lost the connection.

As I said it lasted about 80 mins.

How do you explain Jennifer James' tweet that it's all over?

I don't believe you. Judicial Review is to challenge the actions of a public body. Political parties are not public bodies

Really?

Yes. Really. The claimant's QC/barrister cited several cases. Judge agreed there was plenty of cases, and it was not an insurmountable issue.

I'm just reporting what I heard in court today. Public hearing, Teams video, about 80 mins long. Feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit.

And why was the judge giving tips about how to amend the papers when the case was out of time anyway? What was the claimant’s reason for delaying so long in filing her claim when she and those advising her knew of the 3 month limit? The delay had nothing to do with the letter that JJ’s shoddy solicitors waited 9 months to chase up so I hope she doesn’t try to use that as an excuse. It was the delay in actually issuing the case in the first place. Excuses given included that she was chasing her solicitors, waiting for a witness statement to arrive in the post for her to sign and post back and that her barrister was busy photocopying enclosures for her statement.

Can I ask on what basis is JJ appealing this decision?

Sorry, today, not yesterday.

Betsymoo seems to have been listening to a completely different case yesterday from the one Jennifer James heard.

And you said earlier "there is lots of case law showing political parties both pursuing and defending judicial reviews"

Really?

Really? Are you able to point us to some of this case law (in England and Wales) because it's fairly well established that a political party is not a public body.

Some of them were cited in court today. I can't recall the names but the judge did not seem to have a problem with a judicial review against a political party in principle. Nothing insurmountable he said, and may just be a case of changing the name on the docket to the Director General (I think it was).

Never give so much it hurts. This alerted me to the need for crowd funders as it was an early one and then I donated to others.

Thanks betsymoo. A previous update had definitely said the case was declined bacause the Labour Party wasn't a public body. So did this judge disagree with a previous judge?

I don't understand the point about the three month limitation and the defendant's reply getting lost. The time limit for bringing a judicial review is normally three months from the time that the action arose. It's clear that JJ's claim was filed much much later than this, which is strange in the first place. The Labour Party's response would have been sent to court after the claim was issued and they were served with it, so would not affect whether JJ's case was out of time.

In any event, what sort of solicitor files a claim and does not chase the defendant themselves when they haven't heard anything by the deadline for responding? That's truly incompetent to just do nothing and then be all shocked when it turned out the court had a letter that they didn't.

I also believe that JJ's barrister is not a QC, unless she instructed one recently. Who is going to pay for the appeal then? What a joke. Over a thousand women donating, getting blocked and abused by JJ on twitter for seeking updates, JJ helping herself to the funds for her property development business, case totally cocked up by being brought too late and against a defendant that isn't a public body.

Judge said that the Labour party can be subject to a judicial review - there is lots of case law showing political parties both pursuing and defending judicial reviews.

Case was denied on the grounds of time and legal standing. Even allowing for the confusion and delay over Labour sending a reply to the court but not copying in the claimant the application was beyond the 3 months time bar.

The individual pursuing the case, although her motives were not called into account, was not found to have good enough grounds to pursue the case, primarily because she was not personally affected. Judge said others were better placed to bring a case, eg. a woman who was passed over for selection in preference for a TW. And even then, other remedies were available such as employment tribunal or county court.

Judge did not rule out possibility of a similar case being brought in the future.

And the claimant's QC said they were intending to submit an appeal.