GLP v EHRC judgement is coming tomorrow

[DownhillTeaTray]

Listing in the Administrative Court for tomorrow not before 11am: read out of the judgment in our challenge to the EHRC Interim Guidance.

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.org/post/3meo6ow7ow22k

That has no impact on UK law.

The judge quoted the relevant UK cases.

No, this was an application for a Judicial Review. Which was denied.

They (not the GLP though) can now apply to appeal that decision.

And appeals are how FWS ended up at the SC, so don't knock them 😄

On the topic of spaces for disabled people: this from the judgement made me absolutely furious - which is unusual for me, it has to be something really really bad to make me that angry.

73 ..One point raised was that the unisex provision is often labelled “accessible” or “disabled”. That is a current common practice, but it is not a practice that is invariable or need continue. There is no reason why, if only as a matter of sensible accommodation, the labelling could not change.

The the ignorance of the law, and the disregard for disabled people is shocking.
It's not that 'unisex provision is often labelled labelled “accessible” or “disabled”, the opposite is the case: adapted toilets that disabled people campaigned for for decades and which are required under the EA2010 and building regs are being incorrectly re-labelled as 'unisex' .

[Disabled toilets are mixed sex, but that is so that carers of the opposite sex could accompany the disabled user if necessary, e.g. a husband who is the carer for a wife, a mother for an adult son etc. It was never intended that they should be for anybody other than disabled people who need them. Special cubicles for 'ambulant' disabled people who do not need an accessible adapted toilet are provided within single-sex toilets.]

It is not just a 'current common practice', Judge Swift, it is a requirement - both the EA2010 and building regs say that accessible toilets must be provided and signage must be clear. Has the judge seen Approved Document M - Access to and use of buildings: Volume 1 - Dwellings (2015 edition incorporating 2016 amendments)?

It bloody well is 'a practice that is invariable or need continue', not just because it provides for people who actually NEED designated accessible spaces, not people who prefer to use them, but because it is The Law!

I worry about any disability discrimination case that is brought before Judge Swift, unless he undergoes extensive training on disability rights first. Maybe he could start by reading Doc M.

I am sure a few posters on this thread could identify the problems with this assumption.

😀

The only reason SCOTUK would take a case is to clarify existing law.

They have already done that. And this isn't the US. Even if the pressure behind it is .... there won't be a UK version of Roe v,.wade rematch.

It seems to me as though many of these judges are only just encountering TRA talking points.

The accessible loos, the third (rejected) spaces, etc.

They have no idea of the sexual motivation of many of these men. The pornographic filming of themselves, the bullying, the violence, etc.

It's very frustrating. But, like everyone else, they only travel in the one direction.

Do not look at Jolyon Maugham’s video from yesterday discussing this case. Knowing what it is like having cared for people of both sexes who needed accessible toilets (a woman with poor mobility and a man with advanced dementia) I have to admit I saw red too.

The the ignorance of the law, and the disregard for disabled people is shocking.

But not in anyway surprising

I heard that they had raised over £28k in the first day - so 20%. Maybe I misunderstood or perhaps the first 24hrs need to generate a larger percentage to be successful? I’m not up on crowd funding!

It’s awful. Disabled people have fought so hard for facilities they need so they can participate in life as fully as possible. That it can be given away to pander to men in dresses is terrible. High time someone was
brave enough to say “enough” to all this nonsense, you use the toilet of your biological sex, it’s in no way complex, and thats the end of it.

genuine apologies if I am asking ill informed questions/ making poor assumptions…..

I thought service providers are expected to cater for everyone with protected characteristics.

I my book, the ideal scenario would be single sex facilities within which there are accessible provision (in the case of loos) accessible female loos within the female offer.

Failing this, accessible provision is needed. If this meets the requirements of those who need them, what is the problem of creating them in number so they serve all those for whom single sex provision isn’t workable? Are there objections that extend beyond capacity?

????

Sorry? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

The US case you quoted is not relevant here and the judge did cite the relevant UK cases.

You’re not asking anything wrong. You would hope the DfE could provide me with a risk assessment and an equality impact assessment for their private designs with a 5mm door gap for all secondary school toilets. But they can’t.

The judicial review application was heard by the High Court.

Any appeal from the High Court is to the Court of Appeal

(although, technically, it is possible to skip the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court - a "Leapfrog Appeal" but that is very rare indeed).

It’s a similar ‘Kemp Dilemma’, for sure. Incompetent; or wilfully misleading?

Maybe trying to identify ‘the’ judicial colleague is like trying to pin down Shakespeare - perhaps there’s a whole group of them collaborating away and churning out stuff. (Sorry, William.)

Both Foxclubber and Fragrantjudge seem to have their eyes cast toward Europe, for example. It seems odd for two formerly effective barristers to plump for this hopeless route completely independently of each other. I do suspect a type of folie à deux situation.

I think she means that TRAs see it like racial segregation for eg in the US, ie completely unjustifiable and morally wrong.

So service providers do now have to have a toilet for women and women+?

That doesn’t make sense either.

Now it may be that businesses and services who haven’t stuck to building regs will have to change their inclusive designs. This may include places that have historic loos that will be difficult to change.

Does this mean the NT has to rebrand the mixed sex toilets men’s and women’s again?

That might be part of the reason they need to keep up the fantasy - to keep their 3 claimants on board so that they can.

I think desperate people fell for the spin in the immediate aftermath but anyone paying attention would be wary.

But any appeal would have to show that there’s an error in the application of the law. You don’t just get to appeal because you don’t like the outcome. I don’t think there’s a clear avenue for appeal here.

Thank you! Great work from Michael Foran in breaking it all down.

He's doing a live Q & A on Substack at 2.00pm. He'll never get through recent developments this side of bedtime!

The people who I have spoken with who actually are involved with the regulations are very aware of what goes on in toilets. They spend years trying to get health and safety right and stop provision from closing. They have been trying to get governments to take public toilets seriously for years.

Then this happens. And everyone is spending £££££ on theories of who should be allowed in toilets, which would mean ripping up all their work over the years.

I thought service providers are expected to cater for everyone with protected characteristics.
As far as I know, only disability and [in certain circs which the judge managed to make even less clear🙄] sex are covered in the requirements set out by the EA2010 and building regs.

So under some regs, e.g. Doc T Building Regs [England, post-2024 buildings + significant alterations to older ones], separate toilets MUST be provided for men and women; Workplace Regs 1992 also say something similar... there are ifs and buts!

EA2010 and Doc M Building regs set out the requirement for accessible toilets of various kinds - these include accessible toilets with space for a wheelchair to manoeuvre, appropriately-placed basins, paper holders etc etc., and what are called 'ambulant' toilets - extra space, support bars, manageable taps etc, for people with disabilities who need some extras but don't need all the bells and whistles of a separate, accessible adapted toilet. They are also intended to be convenient for women with buggies.
They are located in the sex-segregated toilets.

Apart from women/men and disabled people, I don't think any other 'protected' group needs different toilets. Being trans does not mean you need a designated toilet - you might like one, you might believe you have a right to one, but as Judge Swift put it
73 the existence of less favourable treatment is a question for the court to decide; a Claimant’s subjective beliefs are not determinative.

Most of the the list of 'protected characteristics' don't need separate toilet facilities, so men's toilets and women's toilets which include cubicles for ambulant disabled people + accessible toilets for disabled people who need them should suffice.

Of course Document M has a whole section on separate-sex toilet washrooms

Design considerations
5.11 Ambulant disabled people should
have the opportunity to use a WC
compartment within any separate-sex toilet
washroom.