That All Women Shortlist case?

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Whatever happened with that?

The reason I ask is that in Scotland a transwoman is taking part in internal elections to be able to stand on an AWS. (Mridul Wadhwa)

It's been up for nearly three years.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

@BetsyM00

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

@BetsyM00

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).

Really?

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

Really?

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

Sorry, today, not yesterday.

@BetsyM00

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).

‘Nothing insurmountable’ but a High Court judge already dismissed the claim on the papers because the defendant was not a public body? Interesting.

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?

@MissBarbary

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

Very odd

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@MujeresLibres

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.

You are spot on in your analysis of how the challenge should have been made.