I really think the Judge would have ruled in Amy's favour but, as he pointed out, JR was not where this case (and Ann Sinnotts) should be. The limitations of Judicial Review. I believe the government are already looking at this and perhaps the extra sunlight from Amy's civil case will help.
The problem with this case and Ann Sinnott's is that the EA2010 was written with the assumption that some service providers would want to keep their services as single sex, or with separate provision for the sexes. The single sex exceptions in the EA 2010 allow them to do this.
The people who drafted the EA2010 didn't forsee that only a few years later, the service providers themselves would want to make those single sex services mixed sex, and the law gave no protection for those service users who required a single sex space if the service providers chose not to invoke the single sex exception. So the law protects service providers who want to provide a single sex service, but doesn't protect service users who require a single sex service if all the service providers have decided to make everything mixed sex.
But by not keeping prisons as single sex, the prison service is failing in its duty to keep female prisoners safe, so pursuing the MoJ and Sodexo through the courts for this failure might be the only way to make changes.