Court cases/Judicial Reviews/ET/ETAs

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing it's going to go to appeal.

Because we know what happens to ETA judgements.

'Judge Michelle Sutherland said the toilet policy was a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" to create an inclusive workplace environment for trans staff.
She dismissed Ms Kelly's argument that it was unfair to sacrifice the privacy of women, 20% of the workforce, for the interests of five transgender staff members, 0.5 % of the workforce.'

Outrageous.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/a-disappointing-judgment-in-defiance-of-the-supreme-court/

“I intend to appeal, and I will ask the EAT to consider expediting my appeal, as the decision risks further confounding the already widespread misunderstanding and defiance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland.”

Well done, that woman. Gardening gloves at the ready.

Judge Sutherland:

“The claimant is aware that trans women believe their gender identity is at variance to their sex whereas non-trans men (including transvestites) do not.
“The claimant is aware that trans women often undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning their gender identity (or their belief in it) which may entail medical advice, hormonal treatment, and/or endeavouring to live permanently as a female including modifying their appearance and presentation. The claimant is aware that a transvestite i.e. crossdresser does not undergo such a process and is merely engaged in a temporary modification of their appearance.'

' trans women often undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning their gender identity (or their belief in it) which may entail medical advice, hormonal treatment, and/or endeavouring to live permanently as a female including modifying their appearance and presentation'

'a transvestite i.e. crossdresser does not undergo such a process'

How interesting. Sutherland seems to think that a 'temporary modification of appearance' doesn't count. Is this a new addition to the definition of 'trans'? It'll be good to see this differentiation really broken down in court.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1556?court=ewca%2Fciv

Susan Evans, R (on the application of) & Anor v Gender Plus Healthcare Limited & Ors

'Permission is refused as none of the grounds of appeal have a realistic prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for allowing an appeal to proceed.'

I missed this back in July. An overview of recent court cases, and how they've shifted the landscape in the UK. Cheering reading.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-pillars-of-sanity/

'When taken together ... the five watershed events detailed in this article have systematically detonated every one of the fundamental props supporting the capture of civic society in the UK by gender ideology.
FWS set the biological definition of sex into law. [Wings Over Scotland's] case enshrined the protection of free speech on trans issues. Allison Bailey ended the ability of organisations and businesses to discriminate against the gender-critical. Linzi Smith struck a deathblow to the infestation of every public body in the land with homophobic “Queer Theory” and enforced allegiance to it. And the confirmation of Mary-Ann Stephenson should ensure that the FWS judgment is fully implemented without fudging or backsliding.
The war is not yet over. While some will concede with the best grace they can muster, entities like the Good Law Project and a whole raft of activist “charities” and quangos lavishly funded by the Scottish Government will fight bitterly against reality for as long as they can in the name of self-preservation and their revenue streams.
But just as with the German army after Stalingrad, the die is cast and all they can do is slightly postpone the inevitable. The women (and men) who wouldn’t wheesht have won, and when the history books about the gender madness are written, the spring and summer of 2025 will be recorded as the time it all changed forever.'

This was in July:

Newman v Met Police - claims of discrimination and harassment from Ms Newman, dismissed.

This was where Newman attended a training given by Eva Echo, Posie Parker's name was hissed/booed at.

The ET found she wasn't harassed or discriminated against.

However:

'Those who share the claimant’s beliefs now have their own network.
Some of those who opposed this measure have been issued with “words of advice”.
...
'the claimant’s claim has contributed to substantial changes in the manner in which the respondent accommodates gender critical beliefs and a review of the way in which it engages with external speakers across a broad spectrum of issues.'

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-newman-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-2305069-slash-2023

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Newman-v-Commissioner-of-Police-of-the-Metropolis.pdf

Article in DIVA:

https://diva-magazine.com/2025/07/07/diva-award-winners-eva-echo-and-saba-ali-give-powerful-speeches-at-pride-in-london/

BC College of Nurses and Midwives - Amy Hamm

VANCOUVER, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the disciplinary panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College) has suspended Amy Hamm’s nursing license for one month, starting when she returns to nursing, and has ordered her to pay $93,639.80 in legal costs for her statements defending the right of women to access female-only spaces.
Ms. Hamm had worked in healthcare for over 13 years and had been promoted to be a nurse educator.
In 2020, she co-sponsored a Vancouver billboard that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referencing the author’s support for women’s rights and the right of women to access female-only spaces, such as washrooms, crisis centres, sporting events, and prisons.
Following complaints from activists and a Vancouver city councillor, the billboard was removed, and two formal complaints were filed with the College accusing Ms. Hamm of transphobia and hate speech.
The College launched an investigation that led to a 332-page report examining Ms. Hamm’s public statements between 2018 and 2021, including tweets, articles, and podcasts.
The College’s Inquiry Committee argued that Ms. Hamm had made discriminatory and derogatory comments about transgender people while identifying as a nurse. After 22 days of hearings spanning a year and a half, the College’s disciplinary panel ruled that four of her statements amounted to unprofessional conduct.
Ms. Hamm has already appealed the College’s finding of unprofessional conduct to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Her lawyer, Lisa Bildy, noted, “In our view, the panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court. We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.”
“This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense,” continued Ms. Bildy. “The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”
Ms. Hamm said, “The College has chosen to punish me for statements that are not hateful, but truthful. I’m appealing because biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression. I want to express my thanks to the thousands of Canadians who continue to fund my legal case through donations to the Justice Centre.”

www.jccf.ca/bc-college-orders-amy-hamm-to-pay-93639-80/

Akua Reindorf v Guardian

Settled, with an apology and correction issued by the Guardian.

The Guardian published an article by Peter Walker that was incorrect.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1955919612929040647/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/08/corrections-and-clarifications

' An article and its headline sought to summarise remarks made by Akua Reindorf KC, at a debate about April’s supreme court ruling on the meaning of the term “woman” in the Equality Act, as calling for transgender people to accept a reduction in their rights (Trans people must accept loss of rights, says EHRC commissioner, 6 June, p2). In fact, she had commented, speaking in a personal capacity, that “[trans people] have been lied to … about what their rights are” and that there “has to be a period of correction because other people have rights”. We are happy to clarify this and apologise to Akua Reindorf KC for any misunderstanding.'