@SamphiretheStickerist
And wasn't the FOI,and other requests, denied because because because... Judiciary?
It was to do with crucial dates to do with when the Judiciary training appeared to be covered and FOI-able but they've now discovered that they weren't really because of a re-organisation.
Similarly the Ministry of Justices argues that information on the training of judges by lobby groups must remain secret. In the information tribunal they argued, astoundingly, that trust in judicial independence requires that information on training of judges by lobby groups be kept from the public.
Their defence relies on cleaving to the letter of the law: the FOI Act includes a list of public bodies that must provide access to information. When it was drawn up parliament included the body that trains judges. At the time it was called the Judicial Studies Board (JSB). That name remains in the Act, but in 2011 the JSB “evolved” into the Judicial College, changing its name and some aspects of its governance. The Ministry argues that because the FOI Act does not contain the words “Judicial College” but only “Judicial Studies Board”, the training of judges is intended to be outside of freedom of information.
They say that “sex” in law should be read as “self-identified gender” and that “woman” includes males
This insistence that the words “Judicial Studies Board” can’t possibly be read as the name of its successor organisation is ironic when Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence train judges and civil servants to treat the language of the law in relation to fundamental concepts as flexible, out of date and even offensive. They say that “sex” in law should be read as “self-identified gender” and that “woman” includes males, and “men” includes females. “Mother” should be avoided altogether.
thecritic.co.uk/who-judges-the-judges/
Some useful material here:
sex-matters.org/where-sex-matters/the-legal-system/