Tag: judicial review

Gender Recognition Reform Bill: Judgment will NOT be appealed

The Scottish Government will not appeal the judgment in the judicial review challenging the UK Government’s use of a Section 35 order to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

The UK Government’s intervention and subsequent judicial ruling means the Bill cannot proceed to Royal Assent and be enacted.

Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by a majority of the Scottish Parliament and we will not be withdrawing it. However, the UK Government’s unprecedented use of Section 35 means the Bill cannot proceed to Royal Assent.

“If the current UK Government is willing to work together and indicate the changes they would find acceptable we will happily sit down with them. However, it seems that my counterparts at Westminster will not do this, and it remains to be seen what a future government will do.

“We are unwavering in our commitment to supporting and empowering LGBTQI+ people in Scotland. We will continue to work across government towards a society that is equal and fair, and where everyone can live as they are.

“Devolution is fundamentally flawed if the UK Government is able to override the democratic wishes of the Scottish Parliament. We will be ready to challenge its use on future Scottish legislation, and to protect the democratic will of this parliament.”

The UK Government will seek expenses from the Scottish Government for the Section 35 legal battle over the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Alister Jack has confirmed.

Scottish Trans told supporters: “We are bitterly disappointed about this, as we know many of you will be. The current process to update the sex recorded on our birth certificates is intrusive and difficult.

“Last year’s Bill was not perfect, but it was a huge step forward towards a much fairer and simpler process – so that in those rare but important moments in life where you need your birth certificate you can hand over ID that shows who you truly are.

“So many of us worked really hard to help people understand why the law needed to change – and it’s important to remember that we succeeded, with a large majority of our MSPs voting in favour of the changes last year.

“We’re pleased that the Scottish Government intends to keep the Bill on the Scottish Parliament’s books, meaning that even though it can’t currently gain royal assent and become law, it could at a later date if the Section 35 order was lifted. While it’s clear that there is no path forward with the current UK Government to removing the block on the Bill, we hope that we won’t have to wait too long until a time where the political situation changes.

“When it does, we will be strongly urging the Scottish and UK Governments to get round the table so that the Bill can move forward, and so Scotland can join the growing number of places around the world with progressive, fair and modern laws that respect trans people’s human rights.

“We were pleased to hear the Scottish Government restate their support for trans equality, and to other commitments they have made to improve our lives.

“There’s a lot more to do to make Scotland (and the wider world) a place in which trans people can live happy and healthy lives beyond gender recognition reform, and we will be working as hard as we can to contribute to those positive changes.

“This is a setback and a disappointment – but once we’ve had a minute to catch our breath and rest over the holidays, we will get right back to work.

“We know that some of you will have been holding off on applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate using the current system, in the hope that you could use the fairer and simpler process that, if the UK Government had made a different choice, might even have just about been in place by now.

“Given the uncertainty around when things might change, if you want to apply for a GRC we think that the best thing to do would be to use the existing application process. We are always happy to help you make sense of how to apply – so please be in touch if you need us.

“We know that others might be unable to apply using the current process, because of all of the barriers it contains. We’re thinking of you today. If you’re upset, frustrated, disappointed – we are too. Please reach out and talk to the people around you if you need to.

“Some places you can reach out are:

“Please note that these services may be affected by holiday opening hours.

“Our love, strength, and solidarity to all x”

Social Justice Secretary statement

Collision Course: Scotland takes UK Govt to court over gender reform

Section 35 Order challenge

Request for judicial review of UK Government use of veto

The Scottish Government will challenge the Secretary of State for Scotland’s use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act to stop the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill going forward to Royal Assent following the Scottish Parliament’s approval of the legislation in December 2022.

Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has informed the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish Government will lodge a petition for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s use of Section 35.

Ms Somerville said: “The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament, with support from members of all parties.

“The use of Section 35 is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on clearly devolved matters and it risks setting a dangerous constitutional precedent.

“In seeking to uphold the democratic will of the Parliament and defend devolution, Scottish Ministers will lodge a petition for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s decision.

“The UK Government gave no advance warning of their use of the power, and neither did they ask for any amendments to the Bill throughout its nine month passage through Parliament. Our offers to work with the UK Government on potential changes to the Bill have been refused outright by the Secretary of State, so legal challenge is our only reasonable means of resolving this situation.

“It is important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the Section 35 power and its impact on devolution. These matters should be legally tested in the courts.”

Tortoise seeks judicial review of election process for new Tory leader

Tortoise Media is seeking judicial review of the Conservative Party’s refusal to provide information about the running of the election to decide Boris Johnson’s successor as Party leader and Prime Minister.

The Tortoise newsroom asked for information about the demographics of the membership voting to elect the next leader and Prime Minister; they asked for the numbers of members and how they have grown over time; asked what the Party does to ensure members are who they say they are; and asked what the Party does to deal with attempts at infiltration and interference.  

The Conservative Party refused to answer any of these questions.  Darren Mott, CEO of the Conservatives, said the election was a “private matter” and that the choice of PM is not ultimately made by the members, but the Queen. 

(The full letter is here.)  

Tortoise believe that this is unlawful.   On the advice of lawyers, they have written to the Conservative Party to inform them that they are seeking judicial review because they believe that the Party’s refusal to disclose information is in breach of common law and human rights law – i.e. the Conservative Party is in breach of the laws safeguarding open government and guaranteeing our right to know information regarding the operation of our government and democracy. 

(The full text of our letter to the Conservative Party is here.)

The full argument for judicial review can be found here but in summary we believe the leadership process to be undemocratic, in its conspicuous lack of transparency, and against the principle of open and fair democracy:

  • – undemocratic because the process by which Conservative Party chooses the next PM is unrepresentative (the membership accounts for little over 0.2 per cent of the population and includes non-UK citizens and under-age voters) and because it’s unsafe (the Party has provided no assurance to us as to how or if it checks voters are who they say they are). 
  • – unlawful because we asked the Conservative Party to provide information about the demographics of the electorate, the efforts taken to validate party members and the process of securing the election from interference.  They refused.  In doing so, we believe they’ve breached the common law principle of open government and human rights enshrined in law guaranteeing information is made available to the public about the operation of our democracy. 
  • – we know more about the membership of the Chinese Communist Party – age, gender, geography, job – than we do about the Conservative Party members choosing our prime minister
  • – Party insiders estimate the membership has grown by 50-70,000 people in the last three years, but no one can say who they are; no one, in fact, can say how many of the members are on the electoral register
  • – if Liz Truss moves into No. 10 next week, she’ll have the weakest mandate of any modern prime minister, not being the choice of the majority of Conservative MPs but carried into office by 80,000 or so people who pay £25 a year to be Conservative Party members. 
  • – when we asked a Party official who oversees the Party’s compliance processes to ensure voters are who they say they are, we were told: “Nobody”.  The former head of one of the UK’s national security agencies said the Conservative Party is not resourced to run an election of this importance. 

James Harding, Editor of Tortoise, said: “After we registered Archie, our pet tortoise, a couple of foreign nationals and the late Lady Thatcher as members of the Conservative Party – and the Party had taken the money, issued them all with new membership numbers and invited them to the leader hustings – we were concerned about how the Conservative Party was running this election. 

“We wrote to the Conservative Party to ask who the voters are and what they do to ensure they are who they say they are.  They have refused to answer.  

“This is no way to choose the person who, from next week, will be Prime Minister of a nuclear-armed G7 nation with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.  

“This election is obviously undemocratic.  The Party’s insistence on secrecy is also unlawful.  We are a newsroom; our job is to inform; if the Conservative Party refuses to disclose information in the public interest, we can’t just shrug, we need to take it to court.  

“The public surely has the right to know who gets to choose who runs the country and what is done to ensure the election is clean and safe. ”