Legal clarity sought from Belfast High Court on Supreme Court gender ruling
The Equality Commission in Northern Ireland has said that there is 'significant' legal uncertainty in the wake of the ruling, including how it interacts with existing equality law and with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission Geraldine McGahey said they would consult with other parties on whether they wish to join the legal proceedings on the 'nuanced and complicated' issue.
Ms McGahey said through referring the issue to the courts, they hoped to avoid 'the toxicity which has sometimes characterised the debate'.
The Supreme Court in London declared in April that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The ruling has been interpreted to mean that transgender women can be excluded from women-only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms.
However, the Equality Act 2010 does not cover Northern Ireland.
The Equality Commission was to prepare guidance on the ruling's potential implications on Stormont departments.
In a legal paper published by the Equality Commission on Friday, it said it would request legal clarity from the High Court.
The Commission said that once the High Court decides on the matter, and subject to any appeals, the Commission will then produce its draft guidance, which will be subject to further consultation.
Ms McGahey said: 'After much consideration and analysis, the Commission has concluded that the situation in Northern Ireland, in respect of this matter, is much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape.
'We have no interest in merely speculating as to how a court might determine these issues in the future. We will not answer these legal uncertainties by weighing the arguments 'for' and 'against'.
'It is important that the Commission shows leadership as people and their lives are at the heart of this issue.
'To achieve greater long-term certainty and clarity for all involved, the Commission will be seeking a declaration from the courts to address several questions regarding the significant legal uncertainties.
'Our equality laws do not sit in isolation; they interact with other laws and regulations for which the Commission does not have a remit.
'We believe other bodies and organisations will also require clarification on the legal position in relation to their own areas of work and may join the Commission in its legal proceedings.
'The Commission will issue Pre-Action Protocol letters to government departments and other public bodies with legal responsibilities potentially affected by the judgment and to other interested parties.
'The Commission will also commence a wider consultation process for all interested stakeholders.'
She said the Commission wants to give everyone the opportunity to engage and will welcome input from all stakeholders.
'We fully recognise the challenges faced by employers and service providers as they try to navigate these uncertainties,' she said.
'As this is an evolving area of law, we will keep our interim information for employers and service providers under review and offer advice on a case-by-case basis where the law is clear.
'Ultimately, maximising legal certainty and transparency is at the heart of our strategy.
'We aim to create a robust framework for offering guidance, rather than being subject to numerous legal uncertainties that may be contested in the courts over the coming years at potentially great cost to the public purse.
'By adopting this approach, we hope to avoid the toxicity which has sometimes characterised the debate around how to balance the rights of biological women and transgender women by creating a space for debate and adjudication by the courts.
'We believe our approach will be in the best interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill risks unravelling Windsor Framework
As a former Solicitor General and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I am no stranger to the legal complexities that arise when Westminster legislation intersects with our post-Brexit arrangements in Northern Ireland. Yet even by those standards, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill now before Parliament represents an extraordinary and avoidable collision course with the law. Ministers have sheepishly suggested that the Bill does not affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is a surprising conclusion, and, in my view, a legally indefensible one. As someone who helped oversee the legal machinery of government, I can say this plainly: legislation that purports to apply across the UK but cannot lawfully operate in Northern Ireland is both constitutionally and legally incoherent. The problem is relatively straightforward. Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland continues to follow key parts of EU law to maintain access to the EU Single Market for goods. One such law is the 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive, which mandates that tobacco can be legally sold to adults aged 18 and over. The UK Bill proposes a generational ban, effectively criminalising the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008. The contradiction is obvious. If the Bill applies UK-wide, Northern Ireland will be out of step with EU law. If the Bill is not enforceable in Northern Ireland, then the UK's internal market will be fragmented. Either outcome exposes the UK to legal challenge and breaches the treaty obligations we signed only last year. The Windsor Framework is not merely political scaffolding; it is now part of an international treaty that carries direct effect in UK law. As I saw time and again during my tenure as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the unique legal position of Northern Ireland requires careful and nuanced handling. Blunt instruments like this Bill risk unravelling the hard-won gains of recent years. The legal risk is not hypothetical. The courts in Northern Ireland – in cases such as Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have confirmed their power to dis-apply UK legislation that contravenes the Framework. The relevant test, long established, would be easily met here. The right to purchase legal goods, like tobacco, is an economic right protected under the Framework and the Good Friday Agreement. To remove that right in Northern Ireland, by domestic legislation that conflicts with EU law, would be a direct breach of both. It is simply inconceivable that such a law could stand in Northern Ireland without falling foul of the courts. I say this not as a political opponent of the Bill's objectives, (I actually voted in favour of the Bill in principle under the last government) but as a KC who has spent years navigating the legal thickets of post-Brexit Britain. The law matters. International obligations matter. Our constitutional order depends on Parliament respecting both. I have been greatly disappointed by the level of forensic legal rigour applied to the Bill that is required for it to get muscular enough to be considered remotely workable. The choice now before Parliament is not whether to press ahead with the generational ban. It is whether to press ahead lawfully. That cannot be done until the UK secures agreement through the UK–EU Joint Committee or expressly exempts Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Until then, the Government must pause this legislation. Anything less risks breaching international law, undermining the internal market, and inviting yet another avoidable constitutional crisis.
Belfast Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
DUP MP hits out over latest twist to Supreme Court gender ruling as Windsor Framework causes NI uncertainty
The DUP MP spoke out after the commission said the ruling, which determined the legal definition of a woman was based on biological sex, would have applied in Northern Ireland if it was not for the Windsor Framework. Instead, the matter will brought before the High Court in Belfast, which will likely take more than a year. The Supreme Court judgement has implications for transgender people's access to single-sex spaces. As the ruling relates to an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which does not apply in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission has to assess how it may be interpreted here. It believes the judgment will be 'highly persuasive' in Northern Ireland courts, but the situation is 'much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape,' chief commissioner Geraldine McGahey said. Specifically, the Supreme Court did not consider Article 2 commitments under the Windsor Framework agreed between the UK and EU in 2023. Article 2 underlines the Government's commitment to ensure that people in Northern Ireland do not lose equality and human rights contained in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement is underpinned by EU law, and under the Windsor Framework, aspects of EU law continue to apply to Northern Ireland. Ms McGahey said much local equality legislation used words such as 'sex', 'men' and 'women' without providing 'comprehensive definitions'. But Ms Lockhart said the Supreme Court judgment was a 'victory for the rights of women and girls', and it was 'deeply regrettable' that the commission's response 'appears to cast doubt on the implementation of this landmark decision'. She continued: 'The suggestion that EU law should continue to dictate matters of such importance to women's rights in Northern Ireland is entirely unacceptable. 'Whether it be immigration policy, equality protections or indeed any other area, the Windsor Framework should not be seized upon to place the rights of local people in limbo. Article 2 is about 'no diminution of rights', yet the Equality Commission does not seem able to set out in plain terms which right was in place and has now supposedly been lost. 'The Government must act swiftly and decisively to make it absolutely clear that EU law is not binding in respect of the Supreme Court judgement and cannot stymie efforts to reassert and protect the hard-won rights of women and girls in our society.' Scott Cuthbertson, of the Rainbow Project, said: 'We have worked hard to understand the ruling and communicate our view, and welcome that the Equality Commission has accepted that Article 2 of the Windsor Framework could have implications for how this judgment is read in Northern Ireland. 'We're working through the commission's paper, including its interim guidance for employees and service providers, and considering its implications for trans people as well as our next steps to defend their rights.' Hundreds of trans rights activists descend on City Hall to protest Supreme Court ruling The commission said it would ask the High Court in Belfast to issue a declaration to clarify key questions. Given the unique legal landscape, the commission said it was possible 'sex' could be interpreted differently in Northern Ireland to how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court. Ms McGahey said if it wasn't for Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, 'we would actually be saying very clearly that the Supreme Court judgment applies here in Northern Ireland'. She added: 'That is why we're saying it's highly persuasive for our courts and tribunals here in Northern Ireland. 'Article 2 is about ensuring there's no diminution of rights that are protected or safeguarded within the Good Friday Agreement.' Ms McGahey said there was a debate as to which rights were being referred to, civil rights or rights relating to gender discrimination. Until the High Court process is completed, the commission can only issue 'interim guidance' to employers and service users. One suggestion is for employers to consider universal shower and toilet facilities, consisting of self-contained lockable rooms that can be used by one person at a time, regardless of their gender. The intention of this would be for these universal facilities to be designed 'so no one could infer a person's gender or sex simply because they were selected', thus avoiding risking 'outing' transgender people.
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney government accused of twisting EHRC advice
The comments earned a stinging rebuke from Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the Chair of the EHRC, who said the Commission had made it "clear" to civil servants that public bodies should not wait for updated guidance before acting on the judgment. The peer said she was "very concerned that our conversations with officials appear to have been misrepresented". FWS told The Herald they were stunned by the claims from officials: 'At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice?' Read more: In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The EHRC then issued interim guidance in May related to trans people's use of facilities including including changing rooms and toilets, and participation in sports. It also launched a consultation on changes to parts of its code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which is due to conclude on June 30. The watchdog is due to publish the updated code later this year. While First Minister John Swinney initially welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said it is waiting for this further guidance before issuing new guidance of its own to Scotland's public bodies. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said that the ruling applies now and that "those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices". For Women Scotland following the court ruling (Image: PA) After the meeting with the Equalities Directorate, FWS wrote to the EHRC to question the claims made by officials. Baroness Falkner replied: "As you rightly point out, our public messaging has been that the law as set out by the Supreme Court is effective immediately. "We have been clear in our public messaging and in direct conversations with duty-bearers, including the Scottish Government, that they should not wait for our guidance but should be seeking to update their policies and practices in the light of the new understanding of the law, taking their own specialist legal advice where necessary." Earlier this week, FWS wrote to the Scottish Government's Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin calling for a full investigation, saying it was "extremely concerning that statements made by a senior government official to a third party about EHRC advice have been directly contested by the regulatory body itself". In a letter to the campaigners on Friday, seen by The Herald, Mr Griffin did not challenge FWS's account of the meeting, and said his team would "revert in due course" with a fuller response. He said the Government accepted the Supreme Court's judgment and "acknowledges the EHRC statement that duty-bearers should not wait for our statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations to be in place to review their policies to ensure they are complying with the law as now settled by the Supreme Court". This, he added, "aligns with the approach the Scottish Government has taken since the judgment was issued in April". Read more: In Holyrood on Wednesday, Mr Griffin was pressed by SNP MSP Michelle Thomson to name any concrete action the Government had taken since the ruling. Mr Griffin said only that the "short life working group" had been established to prepare for implementation. He could not identify any specific changes made to guidance or policy. Asked whether the threat of legal action — including two formal pre-litigation notices issued by FWS and Sex Matters — had prompted a rethink, Mr Griffin insisted that his advice remained that it was appropriate to wait for final EHRC guidance. Susan Smith from FWS told The Herald: 'After the rambling performance of the Permanent Secretary at committee, it was clear that the Scottish Government has done nothing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'To justify this, the civil service has materially misrepresented the advice given by the EHRC. There is no justification for Ministers or civil servants to ignore the law, and these highly paid public servants and politicians should not sit on their haunches while grassroots women's groups with little power or funding explain to them the basic principles of law and professional standards. Scotland deserves better. 'To say we are shocked is an understatement. At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice? 'The only recourse open to us is to return to court. But given the Scottish Government resoundingly ignored earlier Court of Session rulings and is now seemingly intent on not implementing the UK Supreme Court judgment it appears largely futile and a further waste of taxpayers' money. Has the Scottish Government really put itself beyond the law?' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment and that public bodies have a duty to comply with the law. "Work is proceeding at pace to implement the ruling across Government. We have established a Short Life Working Group to ensure support and consistency in this. "We expect public bodies to be analysing policies and procedures and this is what is happening. For example, Police Scotland this week issued interim guidance on searching, including searching of transgender people. "The Scottish Government has also updated the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 guidance to reflect the judgment in relation to the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act and this is now published online. "The recent changes to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's interim update demonstrate the complexity of this work and the need for extensive legal advice and consultation with stakeholders. We will continue to take this work forward at pace in a way which protects the rights of everyone in society. "The Permanent Secretary has responded to For Women Scotland."
