Views: 5
Supreme Court latest: Judges ruling on definition of a woman in landmark case
The Supreme Court is ruling on how a woman should be defined in law, marking the end of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women’s campaign group. Watch live from court in the stream below.
The scene outside the Supreme Court
Anticipation is building outside the Supreme Court as people gather for today’s judgement.
Inside, the legal teams have gathered in court one.
The judges overseeing today’s ruling
Five judges are at the Supreme Court to deliver their ruling.
These are Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler.
They were same justices who heard the initial appeal in November last year during a two-day hearing.
They said then they would “take time to consider [the appeal] very carefully” before issuing their judgment on 16 April – today.
What have the two sides said?
Five judges at the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides of this case last November ahead of today’s ruling.
Ruth Crawford KC, for the Scottish government, told the court that a person with a GRC, which she said was a document legally recognising a change of sex and gender, was entitled to the “protection” afforded to their acquired gender as set out in the 2010 Equality Act.
But Aidan O’Neill KC, representing For Women Scotland, said “sex just means sex, as that word and the words woman and man are understood and used in ordinary, everyday language, used every day in everyday situations by ordinary people”.
O’Neill called for the court to take account of “the facts of biological reality rather than the fantasies of legal fiction”.
Explained: The legal fight between Scottish government and campaigners that led to today
How did we get here?
The legal dispute stems back to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed to increase the proportion of women on public boards.
The campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) successfully challenged the original act over its inclusion of transgender women in its definition of “women”.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish parliament’s legal competence.
The Scottish government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance.
This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman as per the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
FWS challenged the revised guidance on the grounds that sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning and said the government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of “woman”.
The group argued the guidance could have implications for the running of single-sex spaces and services.
FWS’s challenge was twice rejected by the Court of Session (2022 and 2023), with judge Lady Haldane ruling in 2022 that the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex”.
FWS was later granted permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court – and that ruling is what we’re hearing this morning.
In pictures: Campaigners gather ahead of Supreme Court ruling
Campaigners have been gathering this morning at the statute of suffragette Millicent Garrett Fawcett in Parliament Square.
The statue is a stone’s throw from the Supreme Court, where judges will make their ruling over the definition of a woman.
The three possible outcomes today – and why it could be a matter for politicians
There are two parties involved in the ruling today, but three possible options.
As our correspondent Matthew Thompson explained on air a few minutes ago, the Supreme Court could come in favour of the Scottish government or For Women Scotland.
“Or [it could be] a third option, where the judges could essentially say, look, frankly, it’s not for judges to be making law,” Thompson said.
“These laws were made – one of them in 2004, long before this was an active debate in society – and, ultimately, this is one for the politicians to decide.
“And then it would very much become a Westminster question, not a Scottish Parliament question.”
The 2004 law Thompson mentions is the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Remember, judges are essentially focusing on two pieces of Westminster laws in a bid to legally define a woman – this 2004 act and the 2010 Equality Act (see our 9.12 post for more on that).
Ruling will be televised – here’s why
Cameras are set up in court to broadcast the ruling this morning – which you can watch in the live stream at the top of this page.
But this isn’t always the case in UK courts, and as recently as just a few years ago was totally unheard of.
That’s because it used to be against the law to film in court, until summer 2022.
Since then, authorised broadcasters – Sky News, BBC, ITN and the Press Association – may apply to film and broadcast sentencing remarks.
Those requests are decided by the judge each time, so it’s not a given that any case will be available to watch online or on TV.
Remarks are aired with a short delay when broadcasting live to prevent any breach of reporting restrictions or errors, with footage subject to usual reporting restrictions.
Major moment due at last after years of controversy and debate
This is the legal crescendo after years of controversy and debate on the issue of sex and gender identity in Scotland.
The key players in this case are Scottish, but the ruling will affect England and Wales too.
Judges are essentially focusing on two pieces of Westminster laws in a bid to legally define a woman. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act form the focus of this ruling.
The former states that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) changes someone’s sex “for all purposes”, but the Equality Act allows trans people to be excluded from single sex spaces in some circumstances.
So how do those two pieces of legislation interact, and which takes precedence? That is what the judges will decide.
The question is should trans people with a GRC be included under the female sex for the purposes of the Equality Act?
It is a ruling with real world consequences as it could affect women’s only prisons, maternity pay, lesbian or gay associations, hospital wards and rape crisis centres.
Trans campaigners say the entire case has questioned their very identity.
This major moment at the Supreme Court comes after years of hearings in the Scottish courts.
The campaign group For Women Scotland challenged a Scottish government decision in 2018 to get more women on public boards.
Ministers allowed trans women to be included in a drive to get gender balance on those boards. After years of back and forth, the legal debate is to be settled by the five London judges today.
This comes amid a climate of controversy in recent years for Scottish leaders.
Nicola Sturgeon’s government passed laws, later blocked by UK ministers, making it easier to change gender and there was the row over the double rapist housed in a women’s prison.
All eyes on the courtroom from 9.45am.
Welcome to our live coverage of this landmark judgement
Hello and welcome to our live coverage of what will be a significant decision at the Supreme Court as judges rule on the legal definition of a woman.
The court in central London will deliver judgment in the case For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers.
Judges will rule on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document that gives legal recognition of someone’s new gender, is protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply across the UK.
The Scottish government argues they are entitled to sex-based protections, while campaign group For Women Scotland argues they only apply to people that are born female.
The judges’ remarks will be livestreamed from court, with a ruling due to be announced at around 10.15am.