Court cases/Judicial Reviews/ET/ETAs

[ArabellaScott]

A thread of court cases involving people with 'gender critical' beliefs. So they are all in one place. I'll try and add links to court judgements where I can find them.

I'll add cases as I have time but please feel free to add others and/or remind me of any I've missed!

1. Maria McLachlan, Tara Wolf. Assault by beating/battery.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/

'Tara Wolf (also known as Tara Flik Wood), a trans-identified male, stood trial for striking 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan three times in Hyde Park on September 13th 2017, where women had gathered to attend a meeting called “We Need to Talk About Gender” at a yet-to-be-disclosed location. Wolf was found guilty of “assault by beating,” more commonly known as “battery.”'

Julie Bindel v Nottingham City Council

Out of court settlement October 2022

"A council spent more than £10,000 on legal fees and handed out £570 in compensation after "unlawfully" banning an event hosted by an author.
A talk by feminist campaigner Julie Bindel was stopped by Nottingham City Council due to what it said were her views on transgender rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63745075#

Gillian Philip vs Working Partners & HarperCollins

'Gillian brought an Employment Tribunal claim against publishers Working Partners and HarperCollins. Gillian argues that she was unlawfully discriminated against when her contract to write children’s books was terminated because of her gender-critical beliefs. Sex is biological and immutable and distinct from gender-identity.'

(from the crowd justice page, can't link to it)

'The judge at the Employment Tribunal described Gillian’s situation as close to unique. Gillian won on the trickiest aspect of her case, delay in bringing a claim. The judge found that it was just and equitable to allow her case to be pleaded after the time limit because in the immediate aftermath of her sacking by Working Partners she was depressed following the death of her husband. This depression was exacerbated by the way in which Gillian was treated by Working Partners / HarperCollins. Incredibly, even in the witness box, Working Partners Managing Director Chris Snowdon continued to insist that the death of Gillian’s husband should have made no difference to her and her children.
However, although Gillian won on the time question, she lost on the worker status question and so she now seeks to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12536989/Bestselling-childrens-author-Gillian-Philip-launches-legal-fight-sacked-expressing-support-JK-Rowling-transgender-rights-debate.html

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/gillian-phillip-vs-harper-collins

Thanks, Signalbox, for your help!

Linda Bellos, Venice Allan, v Giuliana Kendal

Discontinued by CPS

'Linda Bellos faced an offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The alleged offence arose out of an event called “We Need to Talk” which took place in York on 8th November 2017. This was a public political meeting arranged specifically to debate issues arising out of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, as part of a Government consultation process. These changes would make it much quicker and easier for trans people to legally change their sex by a simple process of “self-certification”.
Linda Bellos made certain remarks at the debate which she has claimed were simply a statement that she would defend herself against a trans woman who threatened violence towards her (in response to an incident that had occurred previously when a trans woman assaulted a 60 year old feminist at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park).
The event was live-streamed on Facebook by Venice Allan, who also appeared as a co-defendant charged with an offence contrary to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Giuliana Kendal, a trans woman, who had been watching the live-streaming of the debate, complained to South Yorkshire Police that she found the remarks threatening as a trans woman.
South Yorkshire launched a full investigation into the matter, including interviewing Linda Bellos under caution. On 8th May 2018 Giulian Kendal was informed that the CPS had reviewed the matter at a high level and decided that there was no realistic prospect of conviction, taking into account the context in which the words were uttered and the fact that Linda Bellos would have a defence of freedom of speech under Article 10 of the ECHR.
Despite this, Giuliana Kendal decided to bring a private prosecution against Linda Bellos and Venice Allan. Detailed representations were made to the CPS inviting them to exercise their statutory powers to take over and discontinue the prosecution on the grounds that neither the evidential sufficiency or interests of justice test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors were met, that it was a politically motivated and vexatious prosecution, and that Giuliana Kendal was incapable of fulfilling her duties as a prosecutor in a fair and impartial manner.
Today the CPS took over the prosecution and discontinued it.'

https://archive.ph/1jjyE#selection-563.0-563.16

17th March 2021

Fair Play For Women v ONS

Fair Play For Women have today won their High Court challenge against the Office for National Statistics. The ONS has conceded that the proper meaning of Sex in the Census means sex as recognised by law.

The High Court has now ordered “What is your sex” means sex “as recorded on a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate”. The substantive hearing listed for 18 March is vacated and ONS must pay costs of both sides.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/fair-play-for-women-wins-high-court-challenge-against-ons-census/

High Court Consent Order

https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CO007152021.pdf

Feb 2022

For Women Scotland (FWS) v LA & the Scottish Ministers

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/judgments/2022/02/18/for-women-scotland-v-the-la-the-scottish-ministers

For Women Scotland were successful in an appeal against that decision.
An appeal division of the Court of Session ruled that the 2010 Act set out sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics.
The Equality Act defined sex as relating to women or men where ‘woman’ referred to a female of any age and ‘man’ to a male of any age. Gender reassignment was defined as a person who was proposing to undergo, was undergoing, or who had undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex. The reassignment was the common factor of the protected characteristic, not the sex into which the person reassigned.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, said: “By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman, the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics … It would have been open to the Scottish Parliament to include an equal opportunities objective on public boards aimed at encouraging representation of women. It would have been open to them separately to do so for any other protected characteristic, including that of gender reassignment. That is not what they have done. They have chosen to make a representation objective in relation to women but expanded the definition of women to include only some of those possessing another protected characteristic.”

The Court accepted that, having regard to the general population, it would be reasonable to set an objective that 50% of non-executive, public board members should be women. However, a reasonable percentage for an objective in relation to other protected characteristics would depend on various factors and be unlikely to result in a figure of 50%.

Lady Dorrian said: “The fact that an appropriate percentage for a representation objective in relation to one protected characteristic may not be proportionate and appropriate to another characteristic highlights why it is important to apply an individual approach to the characteristics and to focus in each case on those who share a relevant protected characteristic. ... the definition of woman adopted in the 2018 legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”

The Court made clear that the case had been about interpreting the law in relation to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and had* *not been about transgender rights which was a separate policy issue entirely.

December 2022

FWS v LA & Scottish Ministers (2)

https://forwomen.scot/12/11/2022/judicial-review-2-substantive-hearing/

Haldane judgment...

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csoh90.pdf

BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60420339

A court has thrown out a challenge against the Scottish government's definition of a woman in law.

The For Women Scotland group complained about the way a bill aimed at gender balance on boards had included trans people under the definition of women.

They won an initial challenge earlier in 2022, but went back to court saying the law still conflates sex and gender.

Judge Lady Haldane said that the definition of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex".

She said it could also include people with a gender recognition certificate after changing their legally recognised gender.

The judge also stated that sex and gender reassignment were separate and distinct characteristics but were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

In her decision, Lady Haldane wrote: "I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, 'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."

THIS IS DUE TO BE APPEALED BY FWS. Court date set for 4/10/23
https://forwomen.scot/18/06/2023/judicial-review-appeal/

Glad you took that one on, Signal. I tried but felt like it was bringing on a minor breakdown ...

😂Honestly I was getting to the point of throwing my computer across the room! Going round and round in circles wondering what on earth had happened. I thought I followed the cases quite closely at the time but it was so confusing looking back!

I realise for this one FWS (1) my copy and past failed and only half the detail copied so here it is again...

For Women Scotland v the LA & the Scottish Ministers
Feb 18, 2022

The organisation ‘For Women Scotland’ has won an appeal against the Scottish Ministers in relation to the definition of ‘woman’ used in legislation aimed at increasing the number of women on public boards.

Background

For Women Scotland sought a judicial review of Scottish Government legislation (Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018) which sets out positive action measures aimed at increasing the percentage to 50% of women serving as non-executive members on Scottish public boards. In particular, the organisation challenged the definition of ‘woman’ used in the 2018 Act.

The Equality Act 2010 regulates equality measures in Scotland as a reserved matter. However, the Scottish Parliament has devolved power to legislate for positive action measures around the composition of public boards.
For Women Scotland argued that the definition of woman used in the 2018 legislation did not reflect that used in the 2010 Equality Act and that this alteration went beyond the limit of the Scottish Government’s legislative competence in a reserved matter.

First Instance Ruling

The judge at first instance ruled that the 2018 Scottish legislation did not redefine woman for any purpose other than to include transgender women as another category of people who could benefit from the positive measure.
EU law supported the conclusion that in discrimination matters, transgender people were to be included as being of the sex to which they had reassigned.
She dismissed the petition.

Appeal

For Women Scotland were successful in an appeal against that decision.
An appeal division of the Court of Session ruled that the 2010 Act set out sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics.
The Equality Act defined sex as relating to women or men where ‘woman’ referred to a female of any age and ‘man’ to a male of any age. Gender reassignment was defined as a person who was proposing to undergo, was undergoing, or who had undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex. The reassignment was the common factor of the protected characteristic, not the sex into which the person reassigned.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, said: “By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman, the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics … It would have been open to the Scottish Parliament to include an equal opportunities objective on public boards aimed at encouraging representation of women. It would have been open to them separately to do so for any other protected characteristic, including that of gender reassignment. That is not what they have done. They have chosen to make a representation objective in relation to women but expanded the definition of women to include only some of those possessing another protected characteristic.”

The Court accepted that, having regard to the general population, it would be reasonable to set an objective that 50% of non-executive, public board members should be women. However, a reasonable percentage for an objective in relation to other protected characteristics would depend on various factors and be unlikely to result in a figure of 50%.

Lady Dorrian said: “The fact that an appropriate percentage for a representation objective in relation to one protected characteristic may not be proportionate and appropriate to another characteristic highlights why it is important to apply an individual approach to the characteristics and to focus in each case on those who share a relevant protected characteristic. ... the definition of woman adopted in the 2018 legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”

The Court made clear that the case had been about interpreting the law in relation to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and had* *not been about transgender rights which was a separate policy issue entirely.

This is fantastic work and something we can all use when people try to fob us off. OP do you know which if any cases you still need to cover fornthe thread? Can we help?

Quite depressing realising how many of these cases I've chipped in for over the last few years, just to try to help us preserve the meagre status quo of women's lawful rights and provisions.

Arabella and Signal, thanks for your multiple additions to this useful thread 💐

Even though I had contributed to crowdfunding for some, and had followed each of these cases at the time, I had forgotten some of them. It’s frustrating that court cases are having to be brought to make institutions carry out their duties/obey the law.

What a fantastic thread. So useful for reference.

And also showing how far we've come. The direction of travel is always going in one way. Some of those old cases wouldn't even see the light of day now.

Thank you!!

Great work Arabellaand signal there are several up and coming cases but perhaps we should wait for the results. So far it looks weighted towards our side. Good luck to everyone doing this.

Jo Phoenix, off the top of my head, and James Esses I think is still waiting?

Given that cases can drag on for years, and appeals, etc, I think it's probably fine to add ones that aren't yet decided and update later?

Kristie Higgs v Farmor's School

Also in this case was the recusal of not one but two EAT tribunal panel members due to bias:

“Handing down judgment, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Judge Eady agreed she would recuse Mr Morris and would have to proceed with the hearing ‘judge alone’. She said: “I allow the application to be recused. Key points: he was at the relevant time a member of an organisation where he held a senior office which campaigned on the same issues as in the post. Whether or not he agreed, as a senior officer he associated with the views expressed by NEU. Many unions express views on matters of current issues, but NEU took a particular interest in the issues in question. Difficult to see how Mr Morris as Assistant General Secretary can be dissociated from those views in the eyes of an impartial observer.”

In July 2022, Kristie’s appeal was postponed after Judge Eady, had also been forced to recuse trans activist, Edward Lord from the presiding panel. It transpired that Lord, associated with Mermaids and Stonewall, had made a series of public statements relating to key issues in Mrs Higgs’ case, including the extent to which individuals should be restricted from making comments or statements regarding LGBT ideology, especially transgenderism.”

https://www.vwv.co.uk/news-and-events/blog/employment-law-brief/eat-lay-member-recused-bias

https://christianconcern.com/news/kristie-higgs-appeal-to-proceed-judge-alone-after-double-recusal/

Calvin Robinson vs Royal Academy of Dance

£8000 out of court settlement after fired for opposing DQST

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12579145/Preacher-Calvin-Robinson-fired-Royal-Academy-Dance-protesting-against-drag-queen-story-time-wins-payout.html

Teenage girl vs CPS 2021

“Today we were very pleased to learn that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has permanently withdrawn its LGBT+ Bullying and Hate Crime Guidance for Schools. We had very serious concerns about the impact of this hate crime guidance on girls’ ability to stand up for their rights in schools. We are delighted that it will not be re-issued.

At a hearing this afternoon a judge considered the application for a judicial review of the participation of the Crown Prosecution Service in Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Champions’ programme. This application was based on the stated intention of the CPS to review and re-issue their LGBT+ Bullying and Hate Crime Guidance for Schools, which they had withdrawn after a teenage girl challenged it on the grounds of safety and freedom of speech. The teenager felt that they would not be able to review it fairly while Stonewall was embedded in the service.

The judge has decided that this judicial review should not go ahead. It is disappointing that he seems to have accepted that being a member of Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Champions’ scheme is merely a matter of employee rights. He has not acknowledged that in fact their influence goes much wider than this. We understand the claimant is following the advice of her legal team and will not be launching an appeal.

We are very concerned by the lack of transparency in the relationship between the CPS and Stonewall, both regarding the development of the Hate Crime Schools Guidance and also in other matters of policy and guidance. Further, we are disgusted at the CPS’s attempt today to depart from normal practice and seek punitive damages against a 15 year old girl. We believe this is intended to have a silencing attempt on others seeking to oppose Stonewall’s anti-women and anti-safeguarding ideology.”

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/01/12/cps-hate-crime-schools-guidance-permanently-withdrawn-judicial-review/

Marion Millar v the Crown

Case discontinued by the Crown.

'AN accountant and campaigner has been charged under the Malicious Communications Act for tweets published in 2019 and 2020.
Marion Millar, a well-known feminist activist and former SNP member, recently revealed that she had been told to report to a police station over complaints she tweeted “homophobic and transphobic” posts.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19350530.marion-millar-activist-charged-hate-crime-twitter-content/

'Charges related to alleged homophobic and transphobic messages on social media have been dropped against a Scottish activist.
It had been claimed Marion Millar, 50, behaved in a threatening or abusive manner between October and June.
The offence was said to have been aggravated by prejudice related to sexual orientation.
The Crown has confirmed charges have been "discontinued".'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59076966

A new one I have just seen today - Lizzy Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council - a lesbian social worker being silenced for gc beliefs - crowd justice page available for gardening

Thanks. Looking for any reporting on that but so far only finding the crowdfunder page, which I can't link to.

'I am a social worker, and a lesbian who believes that sex is real, and matters. Sex matters particularly to me as a woman who is exclusively sexually attracted to women. I do not believe that men can literally become women.

When I sought to participate in meetings of a workplace LGBTQIA group and expressed my “gender critical” belief, I was subjected to a group complaint by colleagues followed by a disciplinary process resulting in formal “management action” designed to silence me. I was also excluded from the network.'

'I’m suing my employer, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC), in the employment tribunal for harassment and discrimination.'

She has Didlaws and Naomi Cunningham representing, so looks like a strong team.

Fair Play For Women (FPFW) v Scottish Ministers.
(This case was in relation to the meaning of sex in the Scottish Census)

LOST ON APPEAL

FPFW blog...
Last week we took our fight over the meaning of “sex” to the Scottish Appeal Court. We lost. As the dust settles, this blog discusses what the loss means, why we did what we did, and what next?
https://fairplayforwomen.com/biological-sex-matters/

1st instance judgment 17th Feb 2022
https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022CSOH20-1.pdf

Appeal judgment 24th Feb 2022
https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022CSIH7-1.pdf

Sarah Summers v Survivors Network

'A rape crisis centre which has refused to hold female-only sessions is being sued by a user who objected to a male-presenting transwoman being allowed to attend her support group.Sarah Summers – not her real name – joined the group run by Survivors Network in 2021 after she realised she was going to be coming into contact with her rapist in her neighbourhood.'

From the crowdfunder page:

'The law that makes it possible to offer single-sex services is expressed in terms of permission, not obligation. My central argument is that the Survivors’ Network’s “trans inclusive” policy is indirectly discriminatory: that is, it puts women at a particular disadvantage compared to men, and can’t be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.'

' Another case management conference has been listed for December 2023 in front of a more senior judge to deal with outstanding directions and issues. The final hearing is provisionally listed for dates between 17-28 June 2024,'

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2022/05/05/brighton-rape-crisis-centre-sued-over-refusal-to-offer-female-only-groups/

Freddy McConnell v Registrar General for England and Wales

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court... REFUSED 09/11/2020
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-from-the-uk-supreme-court-nov-2020.html

Telegraph...
https://archive.ph/vbEML#selection-2841.4-2841.20

A transgender man who does not want to be recorded as the “mother” on his child’s birth certificate has failed in his bid at the Supreme Court.

Freddy McConnell, who was born a woman, wants to be registered as the “father” or “parent” on the certificate and claimed that documenting him as the “mother” breached his human rights.

Mr Connell, a journalist in his thirties, took the case to the High Court last year and then later to the Court of Appeal. But his claim was dismissed at both hearings, with judges ruling he must appear as “mother” on the certificate.

On Monday, his legal challenge suffered further defeat after he was denied permission to mount an appeal at the Supreme Court on the grounds that the case does not raise “an arguable point of law”.

The refusal means Mr McConnell will not be able to take his case any further in the UK courts.

there is a new tribunals against Cambridgeshire council. Lizzy Potts, a manager who was persecuted and disciplined for holding and expressing the view that sex was material.Louise Chivers, a colleague who was on a probationary period was sacked.