Judge gives Transgender Trend permission to intervene in support of Keira Bell

[stumbledin]

We are very happy to announce that the judge in this case has given Transgender Trend permission to intervene in support of Keira Bell @KLBfax

twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1300730918710259712

@rogdmum Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

So Mermaids and Stonewall applied to be a third party intervenor and were refused.

Yes, it’s great news, isn’t it?

[quote FindTheTruth]**@rogdmum* Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.*

So Mermaids and Stonewall applied to be a third party intervenor and were refused.[/quote]
My understanding from other posts is they put in a submission but it was rejected - that might have been because it was too poor or it might have been because it included no new information. I am guessing the 13 year old was allowed because it brings the perspective of a child.

Dug for the Susan Evan's case...

[quote FindTheTruth]**@rogdmum* Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.*

So Mermaids and Stonewall applied to be a third party intervenor and were refused.[/quote]
This document about third party interventions gives a possible explanation for the refusal.

justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/To-Assist-the-Court-Web.pdf

On page 6 they describe what is meant by a third party intervener (my bold):

1.11 An intervener is distinct from a party – whether claimant or defendant, appellant or respondent, prosecutor or accused. A party has a direct stake in the outcome of the case, whereas a third party intervener does not. Generally, a third party intervener should not be confused with:

(a)An interested party: an interested party is someone who is identified by either the claimant or the defendant as being directly affected by the case (in particular, the relief that may or may not be granted by the court depending on whether it finds for or against the claimant).

I think both Mermaids and Stonewall may have been identified as 'interested parties', rather than third party interveners.

gardening gloves on for the Safe Schools Alliance case - CPS hate crime guidance.

When I suggested to someone that this guidance could result in a child being criminalised for speaking openly, I was told that that would never happen and everyone would be sensible about it. Who writes a law or guidance for the law that requires people to be sensible for it to work?? Surely the whole point of writing a law or guidance is to remove the areas of doubt and reduce or eliminate the need for subjective judgements?

@OldCrone I think both Mermaids and Stonewall may have been identified as 'interested parties', rather than third party interveners

makes complete sense, especially as Sue Evans making the case said: It became apparent that there was tremendous pressure on the GIDS staff coming from several directions - the distressed patients, sometimes the families, but most worryingly from the ‘support’ groups and charities, who seemed to be having undue influence on the treatment approach within the GIDS

interesting .. thanks.