Ann Sinnott of Authentic Equity Alliance vs EHRC Judicial Review of incorrect Equality Act guidance

[R0wantrees]

The presiding judge decided that this should go straight to a 1-day oral Permissions Hearing.

This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward.

AEA about the case,
"Official sources provide unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act!
Yes, you read that right! It's shocking, isn't it?

For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls."
Website: aealliance.co.uk/

Ann Sinnott (founder/director) twitter.com/AnnMSinnott

Twitter live tweeting of case via #AEAvEHRC and #IStandWithAnnSinnott

1m ago: AEA's counsel responds.

A: regarding delay, 23rd September was the first date on which EHRC confirmed it did not intend to amend the COP.

We say we are within JR time limits.

Thanks for starting this thread!

@BelleHathor

1m ago: R: there is no harm to public administration if the Commission assumes that, once the three months have passes, the issue has gone away.

This is not a strong case

R's submissions ends.

Thanks for sharing the tweets, BelleHathor.

Has the point been raised that having, or not having, a GRC is moot if no-one is entitled to know who does it doesn't have one?

R They can't use the women's changing facility, or the men's, so there would need to be pretty exceptional circumstances to reach that conclusion.

J: would that also entail that refusing admission to a woman's hostel would also need to be exceptional? Or does it mean that the situation itself is exceptional?

R: that the situation itself is exceptional. You have to balance detriment to one group against the other.

J: you gave me a reference to do with refuges.
I intend if possible to give an oral ruling this afternoon.

R argues that the claimants claim fails because out of time

[comment: there are strict time limits on judicial review after the event which triggers the application]

J: does it make a difference when the claimant first obtained legal advice?

R: there is no harm to public administration if the Commission assumes that, once the three months have passes, the issue has gone away.

This is not a strong case.
R's submissions end.

AEA's counsel responds.

A: regarding delay, 23rd September was the first date on which EHRC confirmed it did not intend to amend the COP.
We say we are within JR time limits.

7m: R: As regards main issues, may I take the example in COP of "they should treat transexual people according to their gender role." We say that is an error of law.

6m:
It is inherent in the concept of single-sex service that it is provided to one sex. We are talking, here, about the male sex. Where is that wording in the COP coming from? That's where are argument at para 22 of the skeleton comes in.

5m: For the TPNC, there is no direct discrimination by exclusion because they are not being excluded on the basis of GR but of sex. Only indirect discrimination requires justification

Ignore my last comment - I think it's the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment", not a GRC. Sorry. Trying to get my head around this. There are more tweets with lots of acronyms which I'll leave someone else to decode!

5m: You don't get to the position of needing to look at indirect discrimination, but the COP invokes that language nonetheless.

4m:J: if the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, discrimination is justified. When you're deciding this, you have to consider its' impact on putative victims of discrimination

4m:For example, a requirement that employees work full time, but you have to consider how it impacts on women due to childcare commitments.

3m: Why does it follow that if a PCP is proportionate for those without a GRC, why does it follow that it is for transexual women?

3m:J: how so?

R: the justification is the maleness of the person being in a changing room with someone of the opposite sex

What's PCP?

1m: To do otherwise would be to water down the availability of single-sex services. The rationale for them is eroded.

@OwBist

Has the point been raised that having, or not having, a GRC is moot if no-one is entitled to know who does it doesn't have one?

EHRC are saying that TW with a GRC are indistinguishable from TW without a GRC, so a GRC is unnecessary. They also said that TW with SRS are indistinguishable from women, legally and physiologically.

So I’m really not sure that they know what they’re arguing, except that males with pc of GR are legally and physiologically indistinguishable from women and that single-sex provision can only ever exclude males who are not gender reassigned, on grounds of sex.

33s: The example given of a total denial of a service to a transexual person should only happen in exceptional circumstances. Take for example Hampstead Bathing Ponds, transexual males say they want to lose the Ladies' Ponds--not the mixed sex or men's ponds.

[comment: that is clearly not a total denial of service, a denial of any place to bathe at the ponds]

Their argument is so blatantly flawed. And yet I'm in a state of complete terror least the judge agrees with them.

@Olderbadger1

Their argument is so blatantly flawed. And yet I'm in a state of complete terror least the judge agrees with them.

The memory of the ONS is making me hopeful.

1m: If the word "conduct" imports a need to look at each individual arriving at the service asking to use it, on a "case-by-case" basis, that would represent a complete misunderstanding of the law and liable to be struck out as ultra vires.

J: I will rise for 20 minutes then come back and give my decision.

Judge rises.

33s: The example given of a total denial of a service to a transexual person should only happen in exceptional circumstances. Take for example Hampstead Bathing Ponds, transexual males say they want to lose the Ladies' Ponds--not the mixed sex or men's ponds.

They've got to be having an laugh.

Decision by judge in 20 minutes. Fingers crossed. Full thread of afternoon session available here:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1390293127630630913.html

EHRC are saying that TW with a GRC are indistinguishable from TW without a GRC, so a GRC is unnecessary.
They also said that TW with SRS are indistinguishable from women, legally and physiologically.

Ergo any man who puts forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others to undergo a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning his sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex is at once indistiguishable from women?

This is nearing transubstantiation.

I'm assuming the last few "R"'s in the tweets should have been "A"s?

That wasn't the EHRC talking about the Hampstead Baths, was it?

This garbled gobbledygook of confusion needs to be enforced reading by everyone who was involved in the drafting and passing of the GRA as an example of what fucking awful work looks like in law making.

Just caught up with the thread as I've been out much of the day. Really hope this can go to full JR as it needs a proper airing. The current basis on which the EHRC have been operating and advising others is nonsensical.

I have been following this all day. Thank you to OP for making more people aware of this issue and to all who have updated us all with copies of tweets.

Waiting with baited breath for the judges decision.