Latest news with #AndrewLearmonth

The Herald Scotland

Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs

For Women Scotland (FWS) has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. READ MORE Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain 'Not divisive': Tory candidate in Hamilton by-election defends Orange Order ties In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The decision marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017, when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. After an initial defeat, the group won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex. Read the exclusive follow up to this story from Andrew Learmonth: FWS launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Although the Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. A previous freedom of information request by the Conservative Party revealed that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by FWS. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said the order 'underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.