Latest news with #LordHodge
The Independent
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Court problems ‘real danger' to Britain's reputation if not tackled
There is a 'real danger' to Britain's reputation internationally if problems such as court backlogs are not tackled, a justice chief has said. The deputy president of the Supreme Court, Lord Hodge, told a committee of peers that as problems persist, it 'weakens our sell of the UK as a successful rule of law society'. He appeared alongside Supreme Court president Lord Reed, who said the sheer cost of access to the courts can be a barrier to access to justice, for example in family law. Asked by the Lords Constitution Committee if he saw access to justice as an actual threat rather than a potential one, Lord Reed replied: 'In some areas of practice, I think it is an actual threat. 'For example, if you're a rape complainant, and the trial is being fixed for 2028, then, you know, either you have a terrible strain hanging over you for years, or you decide that it's not worth it and just give up.' Lord Hodge added: 'We're acutely aware of the access to justice issue, and in our outreach work presenting the UK as a rule of law society, we're also aware that if the problem persists, it weakens our sell of the UK as a successful rule of law society.' He said while in commercial law people get an 'excellent service' in courts across the UK because there is money to fund the litigation, the real problem is for areas such as family or housing claims where there is not group funding. While it is not the responsibility for the Supreme Court top judges to campaign on the issues in those courts, overseen by the Lady Chief Justice, he said: 'I think all we can do is speak out in our extrajudicial lectures to warn of the real threat to access to justice and its wider impact on the UK's reputation.' Lord Reed said the issue was raised with international counterparts two weeks ago when being asked about how the UK operates, and was asked about how criminal justice is dealt with in the courts. 'I explained that there were problems with long backlogs, and people were very surprised to hear that,' Lord Reed said. 'And in fact, one of them said, the president of a constitutional court said, 'I'm very surprised to hear that because we regard the United Kingdom as a model'.' Lord Hodge added: 'So I think there is a real danger to Britain's reputation internationally if these problems aren't tackled, but neither Lord Reed nor I have any official locus beyond what we can say in lectures and things of that nature.' In criminal courts, the backlog for crown court cases hit a new record high by the end of last year at 74,651. Justice minister Sarah Sackman KC also warned the backlog 'could hit 100,000 by the end of 2029'. A review by Sir Brian Leveson is looking at how to overhaul the court system and is expected to give recommendations for reform this spring.
Daily Mirror
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Trans activists install 'third toilet' outside UK Supreme Court after ruling
A trans activist group made their stand by placing a "third toilet" on the steps of the Supreme Court - a direct response to the suggestion to make their own "third space" Trans advocacy organisation TransActual UK launched its latest campaign right on the doorstep of the UK Supreme Court, and its not something you can miss. On Wednesday, May 21, the "Third Toilet," - which is quite literally, a toilet - was placed significantly on the court steps to highlight the question: where will trans people go... for the 'loo'? Made by creative agency BBH London, the pink and blue striped toilet, representing the trans flag, posed as both a call for action and demand for a reinforcement of trans rights and the community's protection since the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of what is called the 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland. The group's appeal fought against the Scottish Government's use of 'woman' in reference to the non-cis community. The Mirror reported on the joint judgement given by Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with which the other Justices agreed, relaying that a unanimous verdict that the term 'woman' used in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and that alone. This controversial court ruling created a wave of debate on online platforms, stirring the fears of the trans community in regards of their safety, along with the stigma that trans women are supposedly at fault for women feeling unsafe, particularly in bathrooms. The court ruling in Scotland has manifested into exclusive bathrooms for cis-gendered men and women, drawing TransActual's question: "Where, exactly, are trans people supposed to go?". Demand for single-sex places - and comments such as Baroness Kishwer Falkner's, active chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said that trans rights groups should create a separate "third space" - have resulted in the statement piece dropped deliberately outside Britain's most esteemed court. TransActual's message? To confront the exclusive ruling which threatens to isolate the minority from the public and social aspect of everyday life. The organisation's director, Hafsa Qureshi, shared a statement which read: "The Supreme Court claimed it brought clarity to an area of difficulty, however, it did the exact opposite," who added that whilst reducing the rights of the trans community, the ruling has already has "devastating" effects. She continued, saying: "This campaign is a powerful statement – about being forced to exist without safety, privacy, and rights, in full view of a society that refuses to see us". Two days ago, in act of defiance, Olivia Campbell Cavendish, founder and executive director of the Trans Legal Clinic, made her stand by (in fact) sitting on the Third Toilet. She said: "We need to move the conversation on from ridiculous things like bathrooms and onto the things that matter," before stating that "the safety of trans people everywhere," takes precedence. Camila Gurgel and Ieva Paulina, Associate Creative Directors at BBH, were clear about the exhibit not being a real victory "when so much has been lost," when the ruling ostracised the community in question from what "directly impacted their lives". "Our hope is that the Third Toilet installation sparks awareness, conversation, solidarity and inspires more people to stand with the trans community," concluded BBH. To find out more, visit
BBC News
29-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Birmingham Pride bans political parties over trans ruling stance
Some political parties have been banned from Birmingham's Pride parade, with organisers citing what they call a lack of support in the wake of a Supreme Court in the UK's top court concluded this month a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities of the annual LGBT+ festival said it had "growing concerns about the role political parties have played in fuelling a climate of hostility toward trans+ individuals".Birmingham Pride said Labour, the only party booked to march at the parade on 24 May, was being informed it cannot do so. Labour said it would continue to protect the trans community", adding laws to protect trans people remained. 'Ignored by politicians' Many groups, including some representing lesbians, have welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, however others have said it leaves trans people feeling "very alone".The ruling received a mixed response from political Pride said the parade was full and was not taking further applications, but added: "The position is clear, any political parties supportive of trans rights would be welcomed and those that don't are not."Eva Echo, Birmingham Pride's director of innovation, said "the trans+ community is still ignored by politicians at local and national level. For too long we've been talked over, used for political gain and forced to watch as our rights are stripped away, and our existence twisted beyond recognition."She added: "Those who do not fully commit themselves to supporting and protecting us throughout the year, do not have a place with us during Pride, just because it suits them." The two-day festival, one of the UK's biggest LGBT+ events, said it had growing concerns over promoting "exclusionary interpretations" of the Equality Act following the Supreme Court ruling. Interim guidance over the use of single-sex spaces, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, said trans women should not use women's facilities, but should not be left without any facilities to use. The Supreme Court was asked to provide clarity on the 2010 Equality Act.A campaign group had brought the case, arguing that sex-based protections for women should only apply to those who are born the court backed that position, but in the ruling Judge Lord Hodge said the law still offered trans people protection against leader Kemi Badenoch described the ruling as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious", and added that the Equality Act protects trans people from Green Party has called for the guidance to be withdrawn, calling it "ill-considered and impractical". The Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey supported the ruling but said more debate was required in parliament to ensure people's rights are respected. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the ruling was an "outbreak of common sense from our judiciary."Birmingham Pride's decision follows Belfast and Southampton pride events in excluding political parties from taking part in marches. Birmingham Pride added it was in "active conversations" with other prides across the country to ensure "a united stance in support of trans+ rights." Labour said everyone in society deserved "dignity and respect"."The Supreme Court judgement gives clarity and confidence for service providers," a party spokesperson said. "We are aware that many trans people will be worried in the wake of the ruling, and we remain clear that we will continue to protect the trans community. "The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment—a protected characteristic written into Labour's Equality Act."
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Equality watchdog issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released interim guidance on how organisations should interpret the UK Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex in law. The new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities". It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use. The EHRC said it was releasing interim guidance because "many people have questions about the judgement and what it means for them". Guidance on when competitive sports can be single-sex will be published in due course, the EHRC said. Last week the Supreme Court found the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex". This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces. As part of the judgement, Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people. The EHRC - which enforces equalities law and provides guidance to policymakers, public sector bodies and businesses - said the impact of the ruling was that "if somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the [Equality] Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)". In this respect, the EHRC says, "a trans woman is a biological man" and "a trans man is a biological woman". The guidance also states that "in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities". When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service. The EHRC guidance adds: "However where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use." Where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing or changing facilities should be provided in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities, according to the guidance. Alternatively, the guidance says it is possible to have toilet, washing or changing facilities which can be used by all, provided they are "in lockable rooms (not cubicles)" and intended to be used by one person at a time. One such example might be a single toilet in a small business such as a café. In schools, it says: "Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls' toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys' toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required." In associations - groups or clubs with more than 25 members - the EHRC says "a women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women)". The EHRC says the interim guidance, published online on Friday evening, is intended to highlight the main consequences of the Supreme Court judgement. "Employers and other duty-bearers must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary," it adds. A two-week consultation to seek views from "affected stakeholders" is expected to be launched in May. The EHRC aims to provide an updated code of practice to the government for ministerial approval by the end of June. A government spokesperson said: "We welcome the ruling and the clarity it brings for women, and service providers. "We will review and update policy wherever necessary to ensure it complies with the latest legal requirements." The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - but now comes the difficult part Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling EHRC - An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment
BBC News
26-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
EHRC issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released interim guidance on how organisations should interpret the UK Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex in new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities". It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to EHRC said it was releasing interim guidance because "many people have questions about the judgement and what it means for them".Guidance on when competitive sports can be single-sex will be published in due course, the EHRC said. Last week the Supreme Court found the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only part of the judgement, Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender EHRC - which enforces equalities law and provides guidance to policymakers, public sector bodies and businesses - said the impact of the ruling was that "if somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the [Equalities] Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)".In this respect, the EHRC says, "a trans woman is a biological man" and "a trans man is a biological woman".In schools, it says: "Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls' toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys' toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required."In associations - groups or clubs with more than 25 members - the EHRC says "a women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women)".The guidance states that "where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use".Where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing or changing facilities should be provided in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities, according to the the guidance says it is possible to have toilet, washing or changing facilities which can be used by all, provided they are "in lockable rooms (not cubicles)" and intended to be used by one person at a time. One such example might be a single toilet in a small business such as a café.The EHRC says the interim guidance, published online on Friday evening, is intended to highlight the main consequences of the Supreme Court judgement. "Employers and other duty-bearers must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary," it adds.A two-week consultation to seek views from "affected stakeholders" is expected to be launched in May. The EHRC aims to provide an updated code of practice to the government for ministerial approval by the end of June.A government spokesperson said: "We welcome the ruling and the clarity it brings for women, and service providers."We will review and update policy wherever necessary to ensure it complies with the latest legal requirements."
