Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment.
The co-directors of For Women Scotland and campaigners celebrated outside the Supreme Court in London after the ruling in April (Lucy North/PA)
The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful.
Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.'
'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added.
At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services.
The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'.
Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'.
She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.'
Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'.
Other campaigners have protested since the ruling (Andrew Matthews/PA)
Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.'
Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'.
James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'.
He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point.
'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.'
The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'.
He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.'
Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans people have been lied to on legal rights, says equalities chief
Transgender people must accept a 'period of correction' over their rights after the Supreme Court ruling on gender because they have been 'lied to' about their legal status for years, an equalities chief says. Akua Reindorf, who is drafting guidance on how to treat trans people following April's ruling on the definition of a woman, added that the blame lay with their lobbyists. Ms Reindorf, a barrister and one of eight commissioners on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), made her remarks in a personal capacity during a debate hosted by the London School of Economics. She said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.' The EHRC has been given the task of developing new guidelines on transgender people for public buildings such as cafes, schools and hospitals, after the Supreme Court ruled transgender women are not legally women. Shortly after the ruling the EHRC released interim guidance advising: 'Trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities.' Ms Reindorf's words came as the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts, scrapped its old guidance allowing transgender patients to use the toilets of the sex they identify with. A spokesman for the NHS Confederation said their old guidance is now 'dated' and requires updating to align with the Supreme Court ruling. The two developments will be seen as a major blow to transgender activists, who have been petitioning for public organisations such as the NHS to ignore the court's decision. The Girl Guides and Refuge, the largest domestic abuse charity for women, have both said they have no intention in changing their policy on allowing trans women to use their female facilities. Ms Reindorf described their approach as ridiculous, arguing it amounted to a 'huge farce'. She said transgender people 'have been lied to and there has to be a period of correction'. She added: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without Gender Recognition Certificates, were being grievously misled about their legal rights. 'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. 'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.
