The English Blackball Pool Federation have won!

[Igmum]

Case dismissed against them - Lynne Pinches has shared this on Twix https://x.com/pincheslynne/status/1951219668976369953?s=48&t=aUMrfsfvZ3ry7TIDiJkOVg

Sorry, 'Kind of correct' isn't the right thing for me to say . you are correct as to what the judge said! I'm just guessing at his motivations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-pool-player-ban-harriet-haynes-b2800323.html

'Matt Champ, senior associate at Colman Coyle, who represented Ms Haynes, said: "We and our client are naturally disappointed with the court’s decision that it was bound to follow the much-criticised Supreme Court case of For Women Scotland and dismiss our client’s case for gender reassignment discrimination.
“However, whilst the judge dismissed the case based upon For Women Scotland, we take some solace in the fact that he found that, if he was not bound by that decision, he would have agreed with our client and found that the need to show that exclusion was ‘necessary’ so as to comply with the Equality Act 2010 would have been on the defendants, that was a hotly contested issue at trial.
“More importantly, the judge also found that if he were required to decide it, he would have found that the EBPF’s actions were not capable of being a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ and so the defendants’ secondary case would have failed. But, obviously because of the judge’s reliance on For Women Scotland, the claim still had to be dismissed. We are reflecting on the judgment and our next steps which will include whether or not we appeal."'

What the actual nonsense?

Also, didn’t the judge basically already say, no, you can’t appeal?

' He concludes that the proposed grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success, and if such an application were made to him, he would refuse it. '

From legal feminist's thread

Indeed. That, plus the rest of the quote above, makes me think that Mr Champ was reading a different decision than the rest of the planet.

The whole article is an exercise in damage limitation, I think. Sad film of Haynes talking about his mother. Ridiculous and inaccurate headline. Careful omission of any views to the contrary, mention of Lynn Pinches, women affected, no quotes from anyone other than Haynes and his lawyer. Why is the Independent so weirdly anti women?

Reporter ex Guardian and Manchester Evening News, the paper that lives up to its acronym.

So basically Mr Champ seems to be saying that if only the law had been different and the rules about legal precedent did not require a first-instance tribunal judge to follow the rulings in a SC judgement <insert sad face emoji>, they would totally have won!

Anyone else read it like that?

That’s exactly how I read it. If only the law didn’t make theft illegal you would totally have been absolutely fine to knock over that shop.

Sad times.

The account/analysis of the testimony of the nuclear physicist and the pool-playing mechanical engineer (complete with asides) is terrific, reminiscent of the heyday of the Big Bang Theory.

It's almost like saying they only lost at a deeply technical level. 🤭

'Darn, if it weren't for those meddling laws, I'd have got away with it'

It's a bold take from Mr Champ, as the judgement seemed to spend a lot of time saying in legalese 'am a bit baffled by the argument they tried to prosecute'

But, a query... we hear a lot about ECHR wading in and following Goodwin - does the Judge's reasoning give a dampner to that? Am not au fait with the detail (Hey Mr Champ, wanna give me a job?!) so would welcome other's expert views!

Yes, that wasn’t how I read it, even though I rolled my eyes at the wording about it not being proportional in the absence of FWS if there was no fairness issue. He’s reaching a bit there!

ISWYDT 🤣

It’s a very odd newspaper.

Mr Champ is a lawyer that seems to mostly specialise in property disputes, with a bit of dallying in human rights and employment law.

i think he might have been a bit out of his depth.

So much winning!😁

Plus always a bonus to see RMW the ‘Go to’ lawyer for trans matters and has an extensive practice in heavyweight discrimination finding that one’s arse does indeed get handed to one.

Don’t forget White’s book! The one that was going to explain it all! The definitive guide.

I liked this.

https://x.com/fondofbeetles/status/1951220248125784513?s=46

My quote came from the publisher’s blurb on that very piece of legal fiction explanation.

I wonder how it’s holding up in light of FWS?

I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when RMW and JR read the judgement. 🤭

Interesting comment from a barrister, Barbara Rich on X

This judgment about sex/gender discrimination and participation in a specific sport also contains a cold water dousing of the wider argument that the FWS judgment is incompatible with the ECHR. Crowdfunding promoters in other cases arguing this should alert their supporters to it

This is of course a county court judgement, but it is good to see the reasoning the judge has used as to why FWS isn't incompatible with the ECHR. There is a screenshot of the relevant section of the judgement in Barbara's tweet

https://x.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1951258555979301005