Supreme Court For Women Scotland

[Cismyfatarse]

The Supreme Court is about to tell us whether we are women

www.thetimes.com/article/6a59421a-6945-4121-9c02-44c5059e0602?shareToken=7e6c99a84676224be2c793794ffb6028

It looks like this is imminent. Article by Akua Reindorf. Haven't read it yet but here for anyone that wants to read it.

Gillian Bowdtich's comment in the Times today about Sturgeon standing down as MSP "First female first minister leaves behind a Scotland in which women have had to fight for their basic rights"

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c46651aa-4573-4e80-9477-c60efa580ae1?shareToken=c399c42f9e4287dbb4f556b77be8ccda

So they lost. The definition of a woman includes a man with a GRC. Am I right in thinking that this was in some respects expected and the upside of losing is that it exposes the absurdity of the current conflict in the law.

Huh?

Oh has the judgment been published? Do you have a link?

I'm confused now as this info cropped up in a Herald article but it might be referring to a Court of Session finding and the appeal outcome is still imminent.

The SC website still says "Awaiting judgment"

Still awaiting judgement. Don't do that to us!
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

Just wanted to keep everyone on their toes. As you were.

Nearly had heart failure …..

The definition of a woman includes a man with a GRC.

Not sure what you are referring to but currenlty, and this is the law the Labour Government defends (as they created it) and stopped Scotland's attempt to bring in self id is that

The UK EA allows for 2 types of women. One is a "legal" woman ie a man with a GRC, but there are also biological women who are (aren't the kind) allowed when "proportionate" single sex (ie actual biologcy) services, support etc..

The FWS court case was about trying to get a court to say that the use of the word sex in the EA must / should mean biology. Although as the Lady Haldane ruling pointed out the fact that the GRA was allowed to undermine sex as a protected characteristic by saying if you have a certificate you are legally the opposite sex to the one born.

So some think this court case (actually about equal representation on boards of companies) would fail because the law as written is the law, which is what Lady Haldane found.

Which is why some thought the best thing is to get MPs to clarify the meaning of the word sex (which even the EHRC has said is a mess) in the EA.

But as we know although this was discussed by MPs (following petitions) the next stage of "progressing" this was being done by Kemi Badenoch who for instance sent round directives about single sex toilets and a survey to find out how many actually understood the SSE.

But as she is gone, and Labour love the law as is (they wrote it!) we are now having to rely on Judges saying that although the law as written is that there are 2 types of women it practice this is discriminatory against biological females and so should be amended to say that the word sex means biology.

Which means GRCs become meaningless.

Not that this would stop TRAs from attacking something so transphobic.

Jeebus fcking crabst, don't do that!

It's NOT on the list for judgments to be handed down next Wednesday. So a ways to go yet. 😕

www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment

The last two SC judgements have been from July hearings so there might be a bit more of a wait yet.

😆😆😆

Things that might be corrected from a draft would be if the judges attributed a quote to the wrong person or wrong document, or referred to the wrong section of the law, or got someone's name or job title wrong, that sort of thing. Basically typos. There is no scope to interfere with the decision itself.

Generally it is only the barristers who see the draft. Then, as you say, the parties see the finalised judgment a few days before it is published.

I note both Lady Rose and Lord ‘Lou’ Reed heard the case on the latest ‘future judgement list’ (July 2024) - so possibly up to four months to go?

Can you imagine writing this judgement up? There’s new stories coming thick and fast. For example this one today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4jyz9dyo.amp

How would the judgement affect all this?
Surely it can only go one way.

I don't know how I can be any clearer. There is no external draft. There are no barristers either since both parties are Scottish and were represented by KCs.

Once the judges have written the decision it will be sent to both parties instructing solicitors who share it with their clients. There is no draft and no-one gets to make any amendments.

Four months of ferrets reversing so hard you can see the scorch marks on the Impact Assessments?

I'm looking forward to it.

There are no barristers either since both parties are Scottish and were represented by KCs.

The Scottish equivalent of barristers are Advocates, both can be KCs. Naomi Cunningham KC, who is representing Sandie Peggie in Dundee, is a barrister.

NC isn't a KC the other one is though

This is the last response I am going to post, because there are more important topics to discuss on the thread. I understand that you are keen to reassure people that nobody can interfere with the judgment, and this is correct. The barristers or advocates (whether they are KCs or not) see a draft of the final judgment when the judges consider it to be finished. They can draw the judges' attention to errors in the draft, which the judges may choose to correct. That does not extend to changing the decision.

If you are still in any doubt, please see paragraph 10 of this very recent High Court decision from Hayden J:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/638.html&query=.2025.+EWHC+638+(Fam)

where Mr Justice Hayden says this:
"It must be said that times have changed since the above judgment was delivered, particularly post-pandemic, where many, I suspect most, judgments are now handed down electronically. In this process, which usually involves a draft judgment being sent to the parties for corrections, amendments, anonymisation and compliance with Transparency Orders, the date that the decision is formally handed down can sometimes get lost. I suspect that compliance with the Rules may frequently be "overlooked"."

I was mistaken on that then (she should be, she is fabulous), but she could be, just as Advocates in Scottish courts might not be either.

Completely agree! 💯

Aiden O’Neil was the barrister for FWS (he’s also a KC as well as a Scottish Advocate). So you get 3 in one! Only a ‘tufr’ with Ben Cooper though as I’m guessing he isn’t an advocate!

@MadameBethune thank you for your post!