Supreme Court For Women Scotland

The last two SC judgements have been from July hearings so there might be a bit more of a wait yet.

It's NOT on the list for judgments to be handed down next Wednesday. So a ways to go yet. 😕

www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment

Jeebus fcking crabst, don't do that!

The definition of a woman includes a man with a GRC.

Not sure what you are referring to but currenlty, and this is the law the Labour Government defends (as they created it) and stopped Scotland's attempt to bring in self id is that

The UK EA allows for 2 types of women. One is a "legal" woman ie a man with a GRC, but there are also biological women who are (aren't the kind) allowed when "proportionate" single sex (ie actual biologcy) services, support etc..

The FWS court case was about trying to get a court to say that the use of the word sex in the EA must / should mean biology. Although as the Lady Haldane ruling pointed out the fact that the GRA was allowed to undermine sex as a protected characteristic by saying if you have a certificate you are legally the opposite sex to the one born.

So some think this court case (actually about equal representation on boards of companies) would fail because the law as written is the law, which is what Lady Haldane found.

Which is why some thought the best thing is to get MPs to clarify the meaning of the word sex (which even the EHRC has said is a mess) in the EA.

But as we know although this was discussed by MPs (following petitions) the next stage of "progressing" this was being done by Kemi Badenoch who for instance sent round directives about single sex toilets and a survey to find out how many actually understood the SSE.

But as she is gone, and Labour love the law as is (they wrote it!) we are now having to rely on Judges saying that although the law as written is that there are 2 types of women it practice this is discriminatory against biological females and so should be amended to say that the word sex means biology.

Which means GRCs become meaningless.

Not that this would stop TRAs from attacking something so transphobic.

Nearly had heart failure …..

Just wanted to keep everyone on their toes. As you were.

Still awaiting judgement. Don't do that to us!
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

The SC website still says "Awaiting judgment"

I'm confused now as this info cropped up in a Herald article but it might be referring to a Court of Session finding and the appeal outcome is still imminent.

Oh has the judgment been published? Do you have a link?

Huh?

So they lost. The definition of a woman includes a man with a GRC. Am I right in thinking that this was in some respects expected and the upside of losing is that it exposes the absurdity of the current conflict in the law.

Gillian Bowdtich's comment in the Times today about Sturgeon standing down as MSP "First female first minister leaves behind a Scotland in which women have had to fight for their basic rights"

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c46651aa-4573-4e80-9477-c60efa580ae1?shareToken=c399c42f9e4287dbb4f556b77be8ccda

"The justices’ decision is due soon. Possibly within weeks."

Good article on the background of the case, but still no more closer to hearing when the decision is due.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25010193.supreme-court-decision-definition-woman-immenint/

(https://archive.ph/10wd7)

While looking at a link from another thread I see that Naomi Cunningham was involved in a case about whether tribunal delays made decisions unsafe https://www.outertemple.com/barrister/naomi-cunningham/

Of course this is a more complex and difficult case but ....

It's still showing as awaiting judgement. About half way down the page.
UKSC/2024/0042
No date given.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases?cs=Awaiting+Judgment&p=2

I saw 19 March mentioned somewhere.

The Spring has sprung,
The Court has riz
I wonder where
The Judgement Is?

I can't remember but who said/thought the result would be out in March?

I thought we were expecting it yesterday.

Just place - marking can see that this has been imminent for a few days now but still no outcome.

Cant remember which case it was (Mermaids?) but a judgement was said to "imminent" for well over a month, I'm not holding my breath.

Yes, the parties will get the judgment a few days before it is made public (not sure about the interveners). But that's the actual judgment, not a draft version, and it's just nonsense to think anyone gets a say on its wording.

Further up this thread:

WeeBisom · 07/03/2025 10:00For those asking how she knows the decision is imminent, counsel involved in a case get a tip off that a judgment is about to come out. After that, they are sent a draft version of the judgment which is subject to an embargo, and they take a look at it to make sure there are no glaring errors which need to be corrected before it is handed down. They are under very strict rules not to say anything about what the judgment contains (if you leak a judgment before it is handed down you can get in trouble with the Bar regulator and it might possibly be a contempt), but they are allowed to indicate that the judgment is about to come out.

I wonder if something serious is going on behind the scenes in response to the parties being given a chance to quickly object to things in the draft?

Where on earth did this come from? The parties to the case don't get to see or comment on any draft. That's just daft, the losing party would always object!