That All Women Shortlist case?

Yes this was the case where she dipped into the pot briefly and then repaid it. I can't remember the crowd funder, but it did show that it's safer to donate to cases handled through crowd justice, as the funds are held by the solicitor and aren't accessed by the individual.
I expect a bit of googling would have told even a non lawyer that political parties are not covered by judicial review. It's v daft that it went ahead in that way. But you win some you lose some. There are alot of ideas for legal challenges floating around, and we can't always predict which ones will be a go-er and which won't. The press coverage around the case told more of the public that all women short lists are open to male people who self identify as women.

You think the money is still there? I don’t know if it is after more than two years and at least one court hearing. Wasn’t there also that thing where she dipped into the funds to tide her business over? I definitely won’t be donating to any appeal which sounds like a total no-hoper anyway.

I don’t think her legal team had the expertise to deal with the matter because they should have spotted from the outset that you can’t judicially review a political party. Her barrister specialises in immigration law and her solicitors do too. The slow progression of the case made me really concerned about this. Judicial reviews are usually issued fairly quickly (even if there is then a backlog to hear the case).

I think a lot of money is still there. But as said why was the original legal advice given that it would be possible to legal challenge the Labour Party when it turns out political parties aren't considered public bodies.

On another thread (we really need a way of linking threads or making sure we update old ones or something) it was said that due to Covid the case had been sent to a regional court to deal with because of a back log. And then after some time (months?) it was returned to London.

Basically nobody thought it a priority and / or were happy to way lay it.

If crowdfunding want to hang on to an sort of reputation, they must give acess to the contact details of those who contributed money. Otherwise they themselves will have breached the basis on which money is raised ie that in the event of a cause not going ahead for whatever reason money is repaid.

If they dont facilitate this they can not be trusted as a funding vehicle.

But that’s a fairly basic point that political parties aren’t public bodies and aren’t subject to judicial review. I don’t understand how the legal advisors didn’t just tell her that from the outset. I also don’t understand why it took such a ridiculously long time to even issue the case. Way way longer than you’d expect in a judicial review case. In one update a while ago she said it hadn’t been issued yet because the barrister was photocopying exhibits, which sounds ludicrous. Didn’t people raise about 30 grand for this? And it’s all been pissed away essentially.

I hope they continue but it’s not looking good this year so far. So is that that the courts think men are women, or are they just trying to appease the tiny minority?

Claim denied on a number of technicalities apparently. But I believe they intend to appeal.

I remain gob-smacked by the determination of the left (and assorted bad actors) to undermine women's rights and deny us representation in order to please a small minority of men.

twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/1349743858641461249?s=19
There was a Permission hearing today, but it looks like that has failed as well, no details so far.
Apparently the removal of the crowdfundr page means she has no way of contacting anyone who contributed.

Jennifer's case was challenging a breach of the Equality Act. How is this not allowed?

It's been up for nearly three years.

Sorry - can someone spell this out for me?

Its been up for months - a year? And now it has been removed because ... what?

Its political or ... ?

It does not sound like the case was well conceived if they were applying for JR but political parties are not covered by JR. I wonder what a better legal avenue would have been.

Anyway, maya Forstater has just tweeted that the crowd funding site has removed this crowd funder because of hate. She thinks that Reuters Thompson Group lent on them, but I couldn't see anything about that specifically in the pink news link so she must have some other info.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1338814878849654784

hmmmmmmmm .... I might have to take that kind suggestion back!

"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body."
www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

"Members of Parliament and political parties are not public bodies for the purposes of the Act "
www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/foi/foimemberscorrespondence.pdf

I have a friend whose one experience of barristers was that:

• they ask how much money you have and if it seeems quite a lot say they will review your case and give you a written response and it will cost you £xxxxxx - and this says you have a 70-30 chance
• then a few months later they say how much money to you still have because they realise they should have asked you for x or y information, which you then supply and you pay another £xxxxxx - and now they say your chances are 50-50
• then another few months later they ask how much money you still have and when you say not much, they say well as 50-50 may be a bit optimistic it wouldn't be sensible to proceed because if you lose you will not have enough money (to pay me!)

Not saying this is true in this case as for all I know the Barrister(s) is working pro bono

2 minutes on Google tells you what "Judicial Review " is.

I see from the Order that James had conjoined her own personal beef with the Labour Party in the application.

Reading the Order I do wonder why no-one drafting the application didn't stop to think why they were asking about 2 unconnected matters in the one application, even if the judicial review point escaped them.

It may be that because something like this has never happened before that in fact this case has now set a precedent if it can not be challenged.

And for all we know the new Labour Leaders with his background had a quick think and thought how can we get out of it.

It would be interesting to know what the women with legal knowledge at Centre for Women's Justice would say in response.

The case could turn out to be significant for a reason other than its original purpose.

I've just seen Jennifer's update. I don't understand why the solicitor/barrister would not have advised her at the start that it would be a no-goer

And why it didn't just get thrown out at the start and why the Labour Party didn't say anything at the start about this.

If they can’t be held accountable by judicial review then how can this law be reinforced? Do you sue for sex discrimination? I agree it is disappointing that the barrister didn’t not know this. Why did it take two years to lodge this case in the first place?

I've just seen Jennifer's update. I don't understand why the solicitor/barrister would not have advised her at the start that it would be a no-goer, if political parties really can't be subject to JR - I'd have thought (perhaps wrongly) that this would be a basic fact to those in the legal know, if indeed it is true. And the admin cock-up is just bizarre.

Really disappointed by this.

Thanks for the update.

If I believed in conspiracies I might begin to wonder whether cases concerning women's rights are somehow being derailed by an administrative cockup.

There was a new update on the challenge to the Labour party to keep all women shortlists female only.

They have been refused permission for judicial review. The reason given seems to be (from what I can tell from the update) that the Labour party has said they are not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body.
Plus an administrative cockup in that the court received this response from the labour party some months ago, but the claimant did not received the response.
But in the update JJ says she won't give up.

Yes. I think the legal challenges are what really has the most impact. Even if they don't win, they force the issue into the sunlight and that always helps.

Thanks. Have donated to that one as am very keen to see it succeed.

• taking the Scotgov to court over their redefinition of 'woman' to include men. I think this is related dir3ctly to all women shortlists, though i daresay it may reverberate beyond that.

There is a crowdfunder.

The Forwomen Scotland judicial review is relevant here, I believe? Due to start early January.

Cismyfatarse The last update on the crowd funding page was in March 2020 but I think it's against the rules to link the fundraisers here. The case had been lodged and assigned to the high Court in Manchester. But nothing since.

There were definitely threads on this board. You can search for thread titles on advanced search.