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

J: is there anything in the COP about mixed sex toilets?

A: no.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
2m
COP says it's perfectly proper to maintain single-sex services, arising from the objective justification for excluding males full stop.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
25s
I will deal with two additional issues, not costs yet.

In terms of timing, our position is per Ann Sinnott's witness statement. AS corresponded with EHRC regarding overly-prescriptive language from 2020.

To some issues she received a positive response, but a negative response once she raised potential unlawfulness.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
23s
She issued JR proceedings on 9th Dec, and that's a complete answer to the issue of delay. In pre-action correspondence, we refer to case of British Bankers Asscn v Financial Services Authority.

Just reading the tweets, I hadn't realise it was this important.

If I understand correctly the EHRC has said that the default is that any transgender person should be treated as their "acquired gender" unless for a proportional reason based on person-by-person assessment.

What the law says is that all transwomen, GRC or no GRC, are excluded from female-only spaces as default?

The huge problem with the Equality Act is that I think it was written assuming service providers would want to be able to provide single sex services.

As it turns out, some customers want those services but service providers want to look as if they are providing single sex services, but also, to those who want single gender services, look as if they are providing those.

I agree with this aside - the Equality act allows service providers to provide single sex services; it doesn't require that they do. And as I understand, it may be quite difficult to demonstrate that a single-gender service discriminates (indirectly) against women / people with protected beliefs ...

And as I understand, it may be quite difficult to demonstrate that a single-gender service discriminates (indirectly) against women / people with protected beliefs

It also discriminates against men who don't identity as women?

If it's arguable that guidance is ultra vires because it mis-states the law, that ongoing error requires correction going forward. This case is not abstract, and invites court to take a realistic approach. If a claimant brought a claim on the basis that they were affected,...
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
2m
...it would be time-barred.

The guidance is arguably unlawful and our claim has a realistic prospect of success.

Ends A's submissions.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
R (EHRC) counsel begins submissions.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
54s
In determining whether the code contains any errors of law, we read the sections in full rather than take sentences out of context.

I meant to say, I'm checking in in a rush, it seems to be going well?? Thoughts from those following it....or too early to say?

So far it's been Ann Sinnotts lawyers. Now it's the turn of EHRC lawyers

R (EHRC) counsel begins submissions.
12:29 pm · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
7
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
4m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
In determining whether the code contains any errors of law, we read the sections in full rather than take sentences out of context.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
3m
In deciding whether the Commission has acted unlawfully, consider that it is an expert in the area, and how it arrived at the guidance produced.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
10s
That is its role and expertise, producing guidance on equality law. 12 week public consolation, round tables with stakeholder, events, all lead to drafting of COP.

(aside by me... yeah and WHO were those roundtable consultations with? not women's rights groups that's for sure!!)

now back to live tweets.....

LIVE TWEETS - EHRC counsel

All of this significant because unless the court finds that the Commission got this wrong, it should be very slow to interfere. That would go to the irrationality grounds for JR.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
5s
J: it's not open to the Commissions to make provisions of its own accord, but I got the sense it was making provisions?

J: it's not open to the Commissions to make provisions of its own accord, but I got the sense it was making provisions?
12:36 pm · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
3
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
29s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
R: we say their expertise makes it very likely that the guidance is justified.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
4s
J: re your point re the way things are expressed, there might be a fine line between a summary of the law and practical guidance re how to apply it?

Are EHRC saying that they are experts and as they are doing what Stonewall requested there shouldn't be any judicial oversight?

That's interesting. So sex being actual sex, not legal sex?

There is precedent to use the term "real sex"

Vera Baird (former Solicitor General) referred to, "real sex" as distinct to 'gender identity" in the session quoted by Robin Moira White (barrister) in recent Taylor vs Jaguar Landrover employment tribunal which concerned Equality Act discrimination. White being of the opinion that,

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it

Public Bill Committee
Thursday 11 June 2009
Equality Bill
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s05.htm

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4200083-For-Women-Scotland-lose-case?msgid=106659752#106659752

That is its role and expertise, producing guidance on equality law. 12 week public consolation, round tables with stakeholder, events, all lead to drafting of COP.

How many were women's groups?

J: re your point re the way things are expressed, there might be a fine line between a summary of the law and practical guidance re how to apply it?
12:38 pm · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
6
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
R: yes.

Intervention in this area raises a question mark. The court is being invited to decide that trans-exclusion strikes the correct balance.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
21s
If there are specific instances where trans inclusion is the practice, and someone is effected, that could be litigated. That's the correct way to deal with this, not in the abstract.

If there are specific instances where trans inclusion is the practice, and someone is effected, that could be litigated. That's the correct way to deal with this, not in the abstract.

Fucking A! If you get attacked the law will deal with.

It also discriminates against men who don't identity as women?

That's permitted because someone not "gender reassignment" is not protected in EA2010. The "gender reassignment" protection is not symmetrical.

Women who identify as men would have a better case if excluded - they would be being discriminated against on grounds of gender reassignment.

R: it is not disputed that the court has jurisdiction in this area.

J: are you saying the code is statutory or non-statutory?

R: statutory
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
23s
In my opinion the court should exercise the utmost constraint where ethical or political controversy, as here.

How does that address privacy and dignity?

@Fernlake

That is its role and expertise, producing guidance on equality law. 12 week public consolation, round tables with stakeholder, events, all lead to drafting of COP.

How many were women's groups?

None

That is its role and expertise, producing guidance on equality law. 12 week public consolation, round tables with stakeholder, events, all lead to drafting of COP.

Does anyone know when this occurred or have links to those stakeholders involved?

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
36s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
There is no evidence that someone has, based on the code, acted unlawfully.

J: Templeman L in the judgment, had anyone acted on the basis of the guidance there, do you know?

There is no evidence that someone has, based on the code, acted unlawfully.

That's not the point though, is it? The point is that they've refrained from doing what the law permits them to do because they thought it was unlawful.

(aside by me - the whole bloody public sector has acted on the EHRC guidance 🙄)