Johnny Depp brought a claim for libel against the Sun newspaper, after it published a headline reading ‘GONE POTTY: How Can J K Rowling be “genuinely happy” casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?’ The headline was later amended to reference an “assault claim.” The article referenced the allegations made about Depp being violent to his partner Amber Heard.
Those allegations might have been so much chip wrapping had Depp not pursued a claim through the courts. To succeed in a libel claim a claimant must show that the words complained of, in their ‘ordinary meaning,’ had caused serious harm to their reputation. If so, the defendant is guilty of libel unless they have a defence.
One of those defences is to show that what was said was true. To succeed in this defence there is no need to show that each and every allegation is true – just that they are “substantially true.” It is a risky defence to run, because to run it and lose risks increased damages, to reflect the harm and distress done by airing the issues through a trial.
The ‘ordinary meaning’ of the Sun’s article was said to be that
“The Claimant was guilty, on overwhelming evidence, of serious domestic violence against his then wife, causing significant injury and leading to her fearing for her life, for which the Claimant was constrained to pay no less than £5 million to compensate her, and which resulted in him being subjected to a continuing restraining order; and for that reason is not fit to work in the film industry.”
Needless to say, if untrue, such an accusation would indeed be libellous.
The trial therefore meant a hearing of all of the evidence about abuse. The allegations were for the defence – the Sun – to prove, not for Depp to disprove, but on the civil standard of proof (“the balance of probabilities”) and not the criminal standard (“beyond reasonable doubt”). The judge was therefore concerned with whether, having heard the evidence, it was more likely than not that Depp was guilty of serious domestic violence against Amber Heard.
The examination of the allegations is conducted in careful detail in the judgment. The judge concluded that of the fourteen separate incidents alleged, twelve were proved, and so the defence of truth was successful. There had been no libel and Depp’s claim failed.
Not only did his claim fail, but the evidence does not show him in a particularly good light: ‘joking’ about being violent to women in prostitution, admitting violence to Ms Heard in messages, blaming his behaviour on a persona he called the Monster, and a chronic drink and drugs problem – all evidence which would not otherwise have been public.
It remains to be seen as to what effect, if any, this will have on Depp’s career. Certainly his fan base are firmly of the view that the judge is wrong, some in more base terms than others. What is certain is that Ms Heard’s career has already been badly affected: she has been the subject of online abuse, petitions to have her removed from her work, characterised in court as a gold digger, and publicly and in the glare of publicity described by Depp as an “overused flappy fish market” and “waste of a cum guzzler” in a rant in which he promised her “total global humiliation.”
The sad fact is that vindication in the courts cannot retrospectively protect Ms Heard from that humiliation already visited upon her. This is a persistent problem for women who report abuse by powerful men.
This week Timothy Brehmer was acquitted of the murder of Claire Parry. Brehmer, a former police officer, had not denied that his actions had killed her. Instead, he said that he had not intended to kill her. That he had intended only to shove her out of the car, and yet somehow, she had ended up dead.
Women across the UK followed the case as Brehmer’s story changed. She had been breathing when he left the car, he said. He said she had tried to stab him. Or maybe not, maybe he had tried to stab himself. Her death must have been positional asphyxiation. Whatever, he hadn’t intended to kill or seriously harm her. Media reporting revealed descriptions of controlling coercive behaviour, and few had sympathy for the pity parade that constituted his reported evidence.
The verdict, acquitting him of murder, was met with outrage from feminists. How could we reach a stage where a man strangles a woman for at least 10-30 seconds with enough force to break three bones in her neck, his evidence is a kaleidoscope of unlikelihood, and yet somehow he is not guilty of her murder?
The answer lies in the “loss of control” defence. Importantly, we will never know why it is that the jury came to the verdict which they did. They had two options to reach their conclusion. One was that Brehmer’s evidence was true – or at least, they had some doubt that it was lies – and that he hadn’t really intended to seriously hurt or kill her when he strangled her. The second was that he had intended to seriously hurt or kill her, but that his actions arose from a “loss of control.”
Although we will not find out which of the two were the basis for the jury’s decision, we do know that the judge sentenced on the basis of loss of control. Once the verdict is in, it is for the judge to decide which is more likely, and to sentence on that basis.
The Bournemouth Echo, reporting the sentencing hearing, records that the judge said
“This is a case where I should sentence you [on the basis] that you lost your self control following the message that was sent to your wife, rather than you unintentionally killing Mrs Parry.
“I am sure that you did deliberately take Mrs Parry by the neck.”
He went on to make findings that the “loss of control” trigger was “only just met” and that Brehmer’s actions bore high culpability within the sentencing guidelines.
So what is “loss of control,” and how does it fit within the legal framework?
Before 2010, the defence was one of “provocation.” It was up to the jury to decide whether a person had been provoked sufficiently to lose their control and thereby to benefit from the reduced sentence for manslaughter, not being guilty of murder. It produced some absolutely shocking results: Thomas Corlett, who got three years for killing his wife after she ‘provoked’ him by moving the mustard pot to the wrong side of the table, for example. It was referred to by campaign stalwarts Justice for Women as the “nagging and shagging” defence, because it enabled men to argue that their wife being unfaithful or arguing had reasonably provoked them to kill her. After some significant campaigning, law reform was finally proposed in 2008, slowly made its way into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was enacted in 2010. The relevant provision is this:
What is this “qualifying trigger?” Nagging and shagging is explicitly excluded, or so the drafters hoped:
In plainer terms, the questions are these: under s.54, was there a loss of control? Was there a qualifying trigger? And might any other comparator in similar circumstances have behaved the same way? If so, s.55 tells us what the qualifying triggers are – here, did the victim say something or do something ‘extremely grave’ and causing the defendant to have a ‘justifiable sense of being seriously wronged?’
“The fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded” was intended to ensure that men who felt ‘provoked’ by their partner’s cheating (or alleged cheating) did not get away with murder.
We should recall, a decade later, that there was considerable opposition to this from some quarters. Feminists were accused of “feminising the law.” Dominic Grieve objected that “the Government have decided that thousands of years of human history and experience should be jettisoned for a piece of political correctness and proclamation: a declaratory statement that sexual infidelity can never justify violent behaviour.” Others pointed out that since men do kill in violent rage, it would be improper to prevent a jury from considering infidelity.
There were also objections that the clause was poorly drafted. These, unfortunately, were rather better founded. What constitutes ‘sexual infidelity,’ how grave is extremely grave and how serious is a serious wrong? Most importantly, what happens if sexual infidelity is just part of a wider context of loss of control? These were the questions considered in R v Clinton, a case concerning three men, who in the span of three weeks had each killed their partner. The Lord Chief Justice, giving judgment, said that “The starting point is that it has been recognised for centuries that sexual infidelity may produce a loss of control in men, and, more recently in women as well as men who are confronted with sexual infidelity.”
The Court went on to take the view that while the new law meant that infidelity alone could not constitute a qualifying trigger, infidelity could still be considered if there was a wider context: “In our judgment, where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in which to make a just evaluation whether a qualifying trigger properly falls within the ambit of subsections 55(3) and (4), the prohibition in section 55(6)(c) does not operate to exclude it.”
In Brehmer’s case, the trigger was not sexual infidelity, but the fear of her revealing the affair they were having, and so there was no prohibition on this being considered a ‘qualifying trigger.’
One question raised by all of this is where coercive control, not considered in 2008, would fit in. How should the law approach men who kill not because they lose control of themselves, but because they are losing control of their partner? Can or should statute try to draw the distinction?
It leads us to a situation where the solution is, perhaps, not available in law. The 2009 changes sought to block one such avenue, but were rather defeated in Clinton. What the defence of “loss of control” really needs is social change whereby the question as to whether a man in the same circumstances, with a “normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint” might act the same way, is met with a jury which says “absolutely not.”
A solicitor has been fined £17,500 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after being convicted of sexual assault.
Concerns continue to mount about the impact on victims of lengthy delays to trials. These problems, already in existence last year, have been exacerbated by Covid. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Naz Shah MP has received an apology and compensation after the Leave.EU group falsely accused her of being a grooming gang apologist. Leave.EU have accepted that the allegation was libellous and that she is a ‘vociferous campaigner for victims of grooming gangs.’
In global news, the UN Secretary General has called for an investigation after more than 50 women have come forward with reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by workers at the WHO and leading NGOs.
Spearmint Rhino have closed their doors in Sheffield, bringing to an end the third judicial review taken on Public Sector Equality Duty grounds against Sheffield. This was not the only litigation surrounding the Rhino: the club, arguably using dancers as a shield, had attempted to prevent the organisation Not Buying It from disclosing evidence of their licence breaches despite NBI’s undertaking never to disclose the identities of the dancers. Spearmint Rhino withdrew the claim and agreed to pay NBI’s costs soon before closing down. Not Buying It are calling on Sheffield to ensure that the women who worked there are supported to find alternative work and mental health support if necessary, since as self employed workers they would not have been eligible for furlough. You can see their campaign here.
In news on sex and gender:
This week Keira Bell’s case has been heard at the High Court. Keira is challenging the Tavistock for their issuing of hormone blockers to children aged 10-16, arguing that children do not fully understand the implications of that decision. The Tavistock argues that they do, and that the whole principle of Gillick competence stands at risk. Judgment is expected at a later date.
Ann Sinnott is issuing judicial review proceedings against EHRC and GEO in relation to their guidance on the single sex exceptions contained in Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010. These exceptions permit single sex or separate sex provision of services, and also allow a service provider to discriminate lawfully on the basis of gender reassignment. The EHRC and GEO’s guidance stated that it would be unlawful to discriminate on this basis against someone who had a GRC, whereas we now know that it is lawful to have a single sex provision which is restricted to one sex, irrespective of someone’s GRC status. The uncertainty over who may and may not access single sex services has been at the heart of much of the debate triggered by Stonewall’s move to abolish them altogether contained in its GRA submission. Whatever the outcome, this action should provide some much needed clarity. You can see her crowdfunder here.
The Law Society has issued a template for firms wanting to support employees who are transitioning or otherwise changing their gender expression. This describes biological sex as “stereotyped categories,” indicates that all employees should use facilities of their choice regardless of the stage of their intended transition, and that pronouns should not just be chosen at will but dispensed with altogether. It suggests phrases such as “Sam is going to get Sam’s coat” for the pronoun-free, and warns that failure to accept a gender identity amounts to transphobia. What a traditional client base would make of it remains to be seen; Legal Feminist wonders whether this will have a genuinely adverse effect on recruitment of those who are gender non-conforming for fear that they will insist on speaking like this to clients.
Stella Creasey MP and Stonewall hosted a workshop on the upcoming consultation on misogyny as a hate crime, at which attendees were invited to ask questions. WPUK founder Kiri Tunks asked “Given the Single Sex Exemptions in the Equality Act are in place to address the misogyny and sexism faced by women and girls, can Stonewall explain why they are lobbying to have them removed?” Readers might think that this is relevant to the subject matter of the workshop: why is Stonewall campaigning to remove the existing redress to misogyny in law? Kiri was removed from the meeting for asking the question, and Stella Creasy MP rather huffily replied on Twitter to the ensuing criticism that a workshop is not the appropriate forum for discussion. If a workshop on misogyny and law is not the appropriate forum for a discussion on misogyny and law, what is?
In news from Ireland, where self-ID was brought into law, a teenager has been remanded into a women’s prison after making threats to kill. The report indicates that no bail application was made and the defendant was reportedly “anxious” to be admitted to a women’s facility. Court reports link this defendant to an extremely disturbed, violent and unpredictable young person who does not have a dysphoria diagnosis (and would therefore not be eligible for a GRC in the UK, or to consequent placement in a women’s prison) and who has declared persistent intent to do serious harm targeted expressly at women. The individual had previously attacked a social worker while she was driving, ripping her eyelid, and reportedly expressed remorse only that the social worker had survived the attack. The Limerick Leader reported the case and the objections of the radical feminist organisation Radicailín. The Limerick Feminist Network were quick to condemn… the reporting:
It is astonishing that their objection was only to the “deadnaming” of the defendant, not to the placement of an individual hellbent on harm to women being placed in an already overcrowded women’s prison.
It’s been a while since our last Friday round-up – here’s this week’s feminist legal news, plus a few highlights from the month.
In Scotland, Adnan Ahmed won his appeal against conviction. Ahmed was a “pick up artist” who made a career out of unsolicited approaches to young women, including two who were in school uniform at the time. Indicating a depressing lack of insight into the difference between “street harassment” and “a compliment,” the all-male appeal court held that“It does not seem to us that a polite conversational request or complement [sic] can be construed as threatening merely because it is uninvited or unwelcome.” They also had much to say about the Sheriff’s descent into the arena of cross-examination.
At Yew Trees hospital, which housed autistic women and / or women with learning disabilities, ten staff have been suspended after footage showing abuse was passed to the CQC. Police action appears to be pending.
Mirth among legal twitter from the judgment in Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, which was introduced in the first paragraph as looking at the “liberty of inebriated English subjects to be allowed to lie undisturbed overnight in their own vomit soaked clothing.” This seems to have been a slightly facetious introduction to a case which looked at the balancing of a detainee’s right to consent to the removal of clothing and the police’s obligations to ensure her safety and dignity including the necessity of a male officer to check on her while she was in her underwear. The conclusion was that the practical needs outweighed her concerns about consent, but that is not quite how it was introduced. The judgment, while circulated as an example of judicial humour, carries an unfortunate note of contempt for drunken women. As to merits, someone had plainly granted permission, so it wasn’t entirely unmeritorious. Legal Feminist wonders whether an equally insensible male claimant would have been the subject of quite so much elbow-jogging amusement.
In Leeds, it appears that the council have decided to extend the “managed zone” in which prostitution is legalised. This is on the strength of the review document, which concluded that while the system failed from 2014-2018, the claimed improvements of 2019 justified extension. It will be interesting to learn whether or not Leeds have complied with PSED in making this decision.
Barrister Alexandra Wilson has received an apology from HMCTS after being mistaken for a defendant three times in one day. BAME barristers being asked if they are defendants or interpreters is sadly not uncommon, and we hope this apology leads to real change.
In sex and gender news, a busy period recently:
In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover, the Claimant, who identified as gender fluid / non-binary and wore women’s clothing to work, had applied to the Employment Tribunal as a result of a course of harassment over a period of time, including insults and abuse. S.7 Equality Act 2010 defines the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” as follows:
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
The Claimant’s submission was that she was included within the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” while Jaguar as the Defendant argued that gender-fluid or non-binary identities did not meet the relevant definition. Finding for the Claimant, the Tribunal awarded aggravated damages “because of the egregious way the claimant was treated and because of the insensitive stance taken by the respondent in defending these proceedings.” Although this is a first-instance decision, and therefore not binding on any other court or tribunal, it demonstrates that the Employment Tribunal is willing to consider that the definition of gender reassignment should be broadly interpreted. Congratulations on a good win to Robin White of Old Square Chambers who was instructed for the Claimant.
Liz Truss MP announced this week that there would be no change to the substantive requirements to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. Applicants will continue to produce evidence of gender dysphoria. However the process will be made less expensive and waiting times will be cut considerably with three new gender clinics opening.
At the same time, the NHS announced that there will be an independent review, led by Dr Hilary Cass OBE, into gender identity services for young people. This follows the cases brought by Keira Bell and by Sonia Appleby relating to concerns at GIDS. We note that the first ‘no win no fee’ adverts by solicitors to represent negligence claims brought by detransitioners are already being seen.
The Department for Education has also published guidance on teaching Relationships and Sexual Health (RSE) clarifying that “You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material.” It is shocking that in 2020 it was necessary to clarify that girls can like engineering and trousers, but welcome guidance nonetheless.
News from the Sunday Times that the proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act to allow a change of sex on a birth certificate on application (“self-ID”), in place of a dysphoria diagnosis, have been dropped, replaced by a promise to reduce the current £140 fee.
There has been enormous controversy around the proposals, which gained far more public interest than most legal reforms when Stonewall called not just for self-identification but also for the abolition of single-sex exceptions to the Equality Act 2010. These represent the strides made over the twentieth century for women to access public life, public space, spaces in which to recover from male violence, and sports, among others. Needless to say, many women’s groups were aghast at the prospect of these exceptions being removed and a return to the “unisex” – in practice, male – spaces of the nineteenth century.
There was also disquiet over the possibility of the process being abused, and of the practical obstacles to women’s groups distinguishing between a person who identified as (but took no steps to look like) a woman, and a man. Such instances might not be common, but the law must cater responsibly for the uncommon but reasonably foreseeable.
Perhaps now that there is clarity over self-ID, there is scope for truly radical legislation and guidance capable of support across the feminist and transgender communities. We could start with proposals for CAMHS funding to be doubled; mental health support for adults to be provided within a strict six month window; improvements to the public sector’s adherence to PSED to ensure quality Equality Impact Assessments are undertaken; free legal support for anyone who has been unlawfully discriminated against by an employer; the abolition of gendered work and school uniform; and access to free education for young adults whose school-age education was disrupted by gender difficulties or sexual harassment.
Victoria Phillips, partner and head of employment rights (client relations) at social justice law firm Thompsons Solicitors, discusses how women have been treated following complications from surgical mesh.
Over the years, there has been growing awareness and press coverage surrounding the issues of surgical mesh, particularly following the publication of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review on 8 July 2020, led by Baroness Cumberlege. The First Do No Harm report looked into three medical scandals: primodos, a hormone pregnancy test associated with birth defects that was withdrawn in the 1970s; sodium valproate, an anti-epileptic drug, which can harm children during pregnancy; and vaginal mesh implants, a cause of unbearable pain and life-long complications.
We represent more than 200 women in vaginal mesh surgery claims so, in terms of the review, our focus has always been on this medical intervention. But the commonalities that bind the three are far more staggering than their differences. The review had many overarching themes but the concerns of female patients being ignored by health professionals was a significant common denominator, which exposed an institutionalised inability for the healthcare system to listen to women.
At Thompsons Solicitors, we’ve witnessed how male surgeons patronise female patients and dismiss legitimate concerns in a way that we’re convinced would never happen if the patient was a man. There has been an overriding paternalistic approach to female issues and patients have had no choice but to trust their surgeon, despite their body telling them something quite different.
If mesh was to be inserted anywhere near male sexual organs, I believe there would have been rigorous and comprehensive pre-market testing before it was even hinted at as a potential treatment option. If there was even a slight risk to a man’s ability to function sexually , mesh probably would have been dropped far sooner, or more likely, never considered an option in the first place.
It begs the question that should a man have been put in the same position, would he have been given all of the necessary information? Would he have been listened to when he voiced concerns about the pain he was feeling after his mesh surgery? Would his medical team have looked into the issue thoroughly and found a suitable alternative? Looking at the findings of the review and speaking to our clients, the answer is a resounding yes. Instead, women were told it was “all in their head”, or part of the menopause, and often referred for counselling in lieu of any effort being made to discover the true cause of their agony.
Many who had mesh surgery didn’t experience issues until years later, but some reported pain and complications immediately after regaining consciousness from their surgeries with assurances it was completely normal and in time would wane. For thousands of women, it never did. They spoke to their GPs, numerous surgeons and other healthcare professionals but were often dismissed when they suggested their pain was from mesh. One client recalled her surgeon telling her parents she was inventing her pain because of school-related anxiety. That client has since been told the rectopexy surgery she had at just 15 years old, which has left her self-irrigating every night since, was unnecessary. She must continue to self-irrigate for the foreseeable future, unless she agrees to have a colostomy bag. She is just 22 years old.
The review team heard hundreds of accounts across the country on all three health scandals and Baroness Cumberlege summed it up by saying she “couldn’t believe that people had gone through so much agony and suffering and had been ignored” and that “much of this suffering was entirely avoidable.”
The life-changing disabilities our clients have suffered from mesh implants has been heart-breaking to see. There has been a systematic failure with a lack of warning from both the manufacturers and the surgeons and hospitals who carried out the operations, without adequate consent. When they tried to complain, our clients faced rejection and belittlement while being wracked with pain.
Baroness Cumberlege didn’t pull any punches in her review. The changes she called for are too late for those we represent, but they offer the possibility of real reform. This is not just about the NHS. Her recommendations must equally apply to the private healthcare sector, which is every bit, if not more, complicit.
An apology to the women and men who have suffered, as well as their families, is as welcome as it is overdue, but it won’t bring back the people our clients once were or the childhoods or relationships they have lost.
To ensure this is not a further slap in the face for our clients, and others affected, the promised changes must be swift, real and resourced from new money, not recycled funds taken from other parts of the health service.
What those who have suffered for so long deserve is decisive action that leads to real change. And that must start without delay.
BBC employees are being “encouraged” to put pronouns at the end of their emails and we look at the possible issues here. Is that a kindness that only a misanthrope could oppose, or is there more to it?
Compelled speech
The first issue is that of compelled speech. Pronouns are not neutral. The move towards declaration of pronouns presupposes that everyone “has pronouns”; which is to say that everyone has an inner gender identity, and being described by the pronouns he / him, she / her, they / them, zie / zem, or something else is an expression of that identity. It also suggests that there may be repercussions for failing to remember a colleague’s preferred pronouns.
This is a highly political position. At the moment, the law recognises two sexes (male and female) through s.212 Equality Act 2010, and that a person can change their legal sex from one to the other by operation of the GRA 2004. There is also established case law which recognises that a person’s gender can be central to their private life protected by Article 8. The law does not lay down that a) everyone has a gender or b) that gender is innate.
The concept of gender identity entered the legal lexicon with the Yogyakarta Principles. These Principles do not carry legal force, but have often been adopted as a convenient shorthand. They were drafted in response to global discrimination and persecution of LGBT people. The definition given of gender identity is this:
We can see two things from this: first, that it assumes that each person does have a deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender. Secondly, that it rather correlates to the Equality Act definition of gender reassignment, envisaging a process which may include medical modifications, rather than a simple declaration.
But the more commonly used definition in the UK is that provided by Stonewall through their training. You can see that Stonewall depart from the idea of reassignment altogether (it is described as “a term of contention” in their glossary). Here are their definitions of gender and of gender identity:
What does this mean? Three things: a) that everyone has an “innate” sense of gender; b) that “culturally determined” masculinity and femininity is innate to males and females; and c) that those who reject their culturally determined gender are at odds with their sex, while those who embrace it are aligned with their sex, and are “cis.”
This is a political, and controversial, perspective. There are many people, male and female, across the political spectrum, and across sexual orientations, who regard it as problematic. It is a particular issue for those women who reject culturally determined femininity as oppressive and sexist, and for whom the idea that it is innate to most women – and by extension, that for those to whom it is not innate are not fully women – is nothing more than reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.
It is from the belief that gender is innate that the drive to announce one’s pronouns stems, because pronouns then become an expression of individual gender rather than a convenient linguistic replacement for a proper noun.
Insisting that employees put pronouns into their signature therefore leaves women who do not accept innate gender theory in a dilemma. They must either comply, aligning themselves with a political position they disagree with; or else reveal their political views in the workplace, which carries a risk of adverse consequences. We know that the popularity of innate gender theory means that those who take the contrary view may be visited with vile abuse, reported to their regulator, complained about to their employer, or even fired – so a woman who opposes innate gender theory may nevertheless feel obliged to comply through fear of losing her employment or being socially ostracised.
Some will suggest that this is acceptable – that to reject the notion of innate gender is so repugnant that those who do so must expect to face adverse consequences. They may point to EJ Tayler’s judgment in Maya Forstater’s case that gender critical beliefs did not qualify as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 for that reason. There are two answers to that. The first is that a first instance employment tribunal judgment has no weight as precedent, and this particular judgment is under appeal, and seems likely to be overturned. The second is that there is a great difference between disciplining an employee or treating them adversely because they voluntarily express opinions that they know to be controversial on the one hand, and forcing employees to sign up in public with a political statement that they may find profoundly objectionable.
A belief that gender identity is innate may also be quasi-religious; the concept that each of us has an inner being, a soul, which is gendered, contained inside the mortal flesh which has a reproductive sex that may not match that gender. As the MP Layla Moran said, “I believe that women are women…. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.”
It has long been held that the freedom to believe is matched by the freedom to disbelieve, not just for outright atheists but also ‘sceptics and the unconcerned;’ as per §31 of Kokkinakis v Greece (1994)17 EHRR 397:
“As enshrined in article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it.”
Freedom to disbelieve in the context of political, not just religious, scepticism was considered in RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38. The Court commented that “As regards the point of principle, it is the badge of a truly democratic society that individuals should be free not to hold opinions. They should not be required to hold any particular religious or political beliefs…. One of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes is their insistence on controlling people’s thoughts as well as their behaviours.” The Appellants, who were politically indifferent, were protected as they could not be expected to assert loyalty to the Zanu-PF regime in Zimbabwe against their true views.
RT (Zimbabwe) was cited in the more recent case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd & Ors (Northern Ireland) (Rev 1) [2018] UKSC 49 (often described as “the gay cake case.”) The bakery could not be compelled to ice a message “with which they profoundly disagreed” onto a cake. It is difficult to see how an employee could be compelled to align themselves with a perspective with which they profoundly disagree in their email signature.
Sex Discrimination
The next issue is whether a female employee encouraged or compelled to declare pronouns could legitimately argue that this discriminates against her, directly or indirectly, because of her sex.
We know that sexism in the workplace is far from over. Conscious or unconscious bias operates against women. This example, from 2017, illustrates the point: when Nicole and Martin swapped email signatures, they learned that “Nicole” would be perceived as far less competent than “Martin” by clients. Without that sexism, if Nicole truly had been less competent, she would still have been regarded as such when signing off as Martin – and yet that is not what happened.
In 2019, the Royal Society of Chemistry undertook an analysis of gender bias publishing in the chemical sciences. It recognised that biases were “subtle” and could be “inadvertent.” Women were invited to review less often, their work was more harshly received, their initial submissions more frequently rejected. These “small biases” led to a “significant cumulative effect.”
The RSC are not the only organisation to have done such research. Others have found similar results, and of course there are numerousarticlesspanning the last decade or more which find that CVs with a female name get poorer results than the same CV carrying a male name. CV writing services recommend against including gender on the CV – a practice which used to be common and is now recognised as archaic. Race is also a factor – although for now at least, nobody is suggesting we declare our race at the bottom of email signatures.
And it is not just the recipient of the email who may be unconsciously biased against a female sender. The female sender herself may be subject to ‘stereotype threat.’ This is where a person is reminded of membership of their group and then under-performs; for example, women who were told that women do worse than men in maths tests then really did perform significantly worse in a maths test than women who were told there was no difference in performance (Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender, p.32-33). Even being reminded of one’s own sex at the beginning of a test can have the same effect (ibid, p32).
It would seem that women who are compelled to declare female pronouns in their signatures may be vulnerable to stereotype threat and also to unconscious bias on the part of the recipient of the email, thereby entrenching those biases further.
This does not mean that any woman whose workplace initiates a pronoun policy has an automatic, unassailable, claim. An employer might defend the claim by arguing that they are aware of the negative impact on women but that it is justified as a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aim of trying to create an inclusive work environment. Argument and evidence would then centre on balancing the potential harms and benefits of the policy. It would be relevant, for example, if the employer was already struggling with recruitment and retention of women, or if there were a male / female disparity in sales commission. The ‘compelled speech’ aspect of the policy would also be relevant to this balancing exercise.
Summary
It should go without saying that if an employee is beginning gender reassignment and wishes their colleagues to use a different pronoun for them, they should be supported to do so. There are rightly prohibitions on victimisation and harassment on the grounds of gender reassignment. That person may wish to send an email round-robin with their news, or may wish to have their pronouns in their email; an employer should not prevent that. However, when the BBC’s guidance suggested that all employees should put pronouns in their signature, and said “It’s really simple,” that was, we suggest, premature, and may be experienced as coercive. And when they speak of “creating a culture where everyone feels comfortable introducing themselves with pronouns” they should also consider whether they might be inadvertently creating a culture where those with the she/her pronouns experience discrimination as a result of their sex.
In welcome news, the CPS and police have scrapped “digital strip searches” of rape complainants, following a threat of legal action from two survivors and the Centre for Women’s Justice.
Shamima Begum has been successful in her judicial review. She challenged the decision to deprive her of citizenship and the decision to refuse leave to enter the UK. It is likely that this case will now be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Kiera Bell has published her crowdfunder on Crowdjustice to raise funds to bring a legal challenge to gender identity theory in NHS England’s Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, arguing that in its present form it prevents clinicians from providing appropriate care.
Permission has been granted for judicial review brought by four “age verification” companies against the Government’s decision to drop the ‘porn block’ planned through age verification to access pornography. The companies, who expected to sell their age verification product, argue that the Government had the power to postpone Part 3 of the Digital Verification Act 2017 but not to drop it altogether. It is unclear whether AgeID, owned by giant Mindgeek which also owns PornHub, Redtube, Youporn, Gaytube and others, is one of the claimants.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has published its paper “Rethinking Remand For Women” arguing that women are too often inappropriately remanded.
On appeal from Scotland’s High Court of Judiciary, the Supreme Court has ruled against Mark Sutherland in a case about the legitimacy of evidence obtained through vigilante groups. Sutherland, convicted after exchanging explicit messages with a decoy he believed to be 13, brought the appeal on the basis that the use of such evidence interfered with his Article 8 rights.
The government has published the Commons Library Briefing on gender recognition and the rights of transgender people. Oddly, this was published, then vanished for a few hours, then returned with two missing sections: specifically, the section on legal gender recognition not being possible for minors and the section on provisions to support transgender children in schools. It may be that these were removed from an earlier draft in view of ongoing legal challenges.
Internationally, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in YT v Bulgaria that the Bulgarian government was not permitted to refuse a trans man any legal mechanism to change the legal sex on his documents. This ruling will bring Bulgaria into line with most of the rest of Europe.
Shamima Begum, the British teenager who left her home at 15 to become an ISIS child bride, has successfully challenged two decisions. She had wanted to return to Britain, her home country.
The government revoked her citizenship, arguing that she would not be made stateless because she would be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. She challenged this through an appeal to SIAC. SIAC rejected her appeal, on the basis that
her hearing would not be fair, but that was not determinative in her favour;
she would be entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship;
although she was living in conditions which breach Article 3, she was not entitled to protection under the Convention because she is outside the country as a result of her own action
At the same time, she had applied for leave to enter the UK. A British citizen may enter the UK, but as she had lost her citizenship, she needed to apply for permission to enter (commonly referred to as “a visa” although there are distinctions between different types of entry clearance and leave to enter). The Secretary of State (“SSHD”) refused. She applied for judicial review of this decision. Permission was granted but the substantive JR was refused.
She then appealed to the Court of Appeal on both decisions.
The Court has allowed both appeals, although stopped short of allowing the deprivation of citizenship appeal outright. Subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court, this would mean that she would return to the UK in order to have her citizenship appeal reheard. Giving the leading judgment, Flaux LJ (with whom King LJ and Singh LJ agreed) held that
The fact that she left the country of her own free will is premature, and irrelevant to whether she can have a fair hearing.
In my judgment, the circumstances in which Ms Begum left the UK and remained in Syria and whether she did so of her own free will should be irrelevant to the question of the legal and procedural consequences of SIAC’s conclusion that she cannot have a fair and effective appeal. Furthermore, I would be uneasy taking a course which, in effect, involved deciding that Ms Begum had left the UK as a 15 year old schoolgirl of her own free will in circumstances where one of the principal reasons why she cannot have a fair and effective appeal is her inability to give proper instructions or provide evidence. One of the topics that could be explored on her appeal before SIAC is precisely what were the circumstances in which she left the UK in 2015, but that could only properly be determined after a fair and effective appeal. The Secretary of State’s submission risks putting the cart before the horse.
§94
However, that does not mean that her appeal against deprivation of citizenship must just be allowed outright. To do so would mean that any appeal in similar circumstances, however lacking in merit, would also have to be allowed.
In particular, where, as in the present case, the deprivation decision is based on an expert assessment that it is in the interests of national security, simply allowing an appeal would set that assessment at nought, a point which was powerfully made by Sir James Eadie QC. That seems to me to be an extreme position which is wrong in principle and would potentially set a dangerous precedent.
§95
So what were her next options? The court looked at three of them: (i) that she could simply continue with her appeal, fair or otherwise, (ii) that she could apply for a stay of the appeal in the hope that at some point in the future she might be able to take part in it, or (iii) if she did not ask for a stay, she would inevitably fail to comply with a direction, the appeal would be struck out, but she might be able to apply to reinstate it.
Their Lordships appeared underwhelmed by options (i) and (iii).
The first and third of these courses can be swiftly dismissed as failing to answer the issue of unfairness and lack of effectiveness of the appeal. With due respect to SIAC, it is unthinkable that, having concluded that Ms Begum could not take any meaningful part in her appeal so that it could not be fair and effective, she should have to continue with her appeal nonetheless…. It is one thing for an appeal to proceed without the participation of the appellant against an appellant who chooses not to participate. It is quite another to proceed with an appeal without the participation of the appellant because the appellant is unable to participate meaningfully and effectively. Far from remedying the unfairness, this would seem to compound it. As Singh LJ said in the course of argument, it is difficult to conceive of any case where a court or tribunal has said we cannot hold a fair trial, but we are going to go on anyway.
§113 – 114
Option (iii) was considered, but rejected on the basis that it would be an indefinite stay, with the potential risk of execution or mistreatment abroad a “foreseeable risk.”
The Court pointed out that she can be held in custody or made subject to a TPIM, as has happened to others who appear to be far more dangerous and have been involved in actual fighting rather than ancillary support through becoming a wife.
It seems to me that… the national security concerns about her could be addressed and managed if she returns to the United Kingdom. If the Security Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions consider that the evidence and public interest tests for a prosecution for terrorist offences are met, she could be arrested and charged upon her arrival in the United Kingdom and remanded in custody pending trial. If that were not feasible, she could be made the subject of a TPIM.
§120
There seems little reason that Begum could not be prosecuted. s.17 Terrorism Act 2006 allows for prosecution in the UK of a person who commits a terrorism offence abroad. Even allowing that extra territorial jurisdiction was introduced for some of the specified offences (“inviting or expressing support”) only in 2019 and therefore may not apply, membership of a proscribed organisation, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, could apply. This is not one of those cases in which a suspect argues that they were simply attending a distant relative’s wedding and naively wandered through a terrorist zone. She has given an interview expressing support for ISIS. The question is perhaps not whether she could be prosecuted, but why on earth she might not be.
It seems extremely likely that this case will now be appealed to the Supreme Court. An issue which will not trouble the Courts, but may vex the casual reader, is this: why is the Government taking such a hardline approach to an ISIS child bride, when they reportedly allowed back 400 actual fighters, surely far more culpable, to face prosecution and / or a comfortable sojourn at a “leading mental health clinic?”
Guest blog: Georgia Luscombe in our series on extended hours
This morning, Robert Buckland QC MP was interviewed on Radio 4 about possible ways to deal with the backlog of trials waiting to be heard in criminal courts. There are an estimated 500,000 cases in the Magistrates’ Court and over 40,000 in the Crown Court. The first thing to note, however, is that the bulk of this backlog is not due to the coronavirus pandemic grinding trials to a halt. It has long been known that this government and its predecessors were so intent on tightening the purse-strings that they would rather leave functional courtrooms closed and salaried judges at home than properly fund a court estate at full-capacity. So it came as some surprise to hear Buckland say, “the first thing to do is scale up capacity and use time in as expanded a way as possible and let’s see how far we can eat into the case load”.
There is mounting political pressure on the government to manage ‘law and order’ effectively. For years now, criminal law practitioners have been complaining about delays to justice from the use of ‘release under investigation’, leaving suspects in limbo without charge for years to avoid time restrictions on bail. It is then galling to represent a client at their Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Crown Court, years after an offence took place, and hear that their trial cannot be listed for many more months. Make no mistake, however, this was well before coronavirus. We can trot out the refrain that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ and have been doing so for as long as I have been at the Bar. The police are underfunded and short on time, the CPS do not have enough staff, legal aid rates have been savaged so far that defence solicitors can barely pay their overheads. There is no reticence from criminal barristers to safely resume jury trials; our income wholly depends on it. The issue is that after years of swingeing cuts to the criminal justice system, there is no goodwill left to eke out of us. We know full well that ‘flexible operating hours’ means forcing practitioners to work longer and under even more pressured conditions to dig this government out of a hole of its own making, that we have been warning them about for years.
My first year of practice (from the beginning of my second six) was primarily defending in the Magistrates’ Court, conducting trials on legal aid rates (usually £100 per trial). I practised about 50/50 in London and outside but usually with at least an hour’s travelling each way. This was my working life:
6 – 7am: Wake up, check e-mails, get ready.
7 – 7.30am: Leave to travel to court.
9am: Get to court, speak to the prosecutor, get last minute disclosure of key material to digest.
9.30am: Conference with my client. 10am – whenever (sometimes 3.30pm because court will just list all trials at 10am and try to get through them, with no concern for lawyers’ wasted time): Waiting for trial to be called on.
4.30pm: Finish in court.
4.30 – 5pm: Another conference with client.
5 – 7pm: Travel home. Write up today’s notes. At some point (usually around 5.30pm) receive papers for tomorrow.
7pm: Eat dinner, try to forget today’s case.
8 – 10pm: Prepare for tomorrow’s case.
10pm: Inevitably get last-minute e-mails, maybe get instructed on another short hearing to squeeze in before the main event tomorrow. Struggle to switch off because of the adrenaline burst this late in the evening.
Then factor in that most pupils and junior barristers are on a Saturday court rota. Mine usually meant making a bail application every other Saturday morning. I know pupils at other Chambers who had to go court every single Saturday. On Sunday you would try to catch up on admin, advices, remembering to renew your professional indemnity insurance, making sure you’re doing some CPD, thinking about topics to do a seminar on so that your practice doesn’t stall. For solicitors, they’ll be on police station duty rota, taking phone calls all night and then starting a day’s work at 9am. What would that schedule look like if a day in the Magistrates’ Court didn’t end until several hours later? Will they change listing practices so that you don’t waste an entire morning at court if your case isn’t heard until 5pm, or will they continue to insist that court time is so precious that yours is wholly insignificant in comparison?
I truly fear extensions to the working day in the Crown Court. My second Crown Court trial was a late return; I remember coming home from court, spreading papers, Archbold and sticky tabs across my dining table and apologising to my flatmates that I’d be there until late and please could they not watch TV in here this evening? It would be a one-off, I said. It was not a one-off… Every night that week would be spent writing out cross-examination questions, leafing through Archbold, trawling through unused material. And so it has been for several other trials since then. I’m grateful for understanding flatmates who enjoy me practising jury speeches on them, provide snacks, sometimes take my washing out for me when I’ve run out of black tights. I cannot imagine having to feed children, put them to bed or be woken up by a crying baby during the few hours of sleep I actually manage. The prospect of having any kind of work-life balance at the criminal Bar if I do have children one day seems totally elusive. It is a reality of my job that I have simply put to the back of my mind, in a drawer labelled ‘future problem’. There is no space to consider it now.
Last year, I was a junior in a seven-week Crown Court trial. It was incredibly fortunate that a family friend lived walking distance from the court and offered me a room, which significantly cut down on my travel time. My leader was travelling to and from London most days and battling with constant train delays. There were a whole host of legal arguments at the outset of the trial, involving near daily skeleton arguments being sent backwards and forwards. There were disclosure issues to sort out and the kind of editing to schedules that can only really be done once the trial is underway and legal issues resolved with the Judge. We would usually still be at court beyond 5pm. I was receiving e-mails from the defence junior most evenings. On some days, somebody had a childcare issue which could not be avoided and so they could not get to court until 10.30 or would have to leave as close to 4pm as possible. The Judge was understanding but everyone wanted to maximise court sitting time to get through the trial. For single parents who needed to pick children up from nursery or after-school club at a certain time every day, I expect this would be impossible.
When lawyers hear politicians say we need to “use time in as expanded a way as possible”, it strikes fear into us. What does expanding our day actually mean? As I return to court in person post-lockdown, I have begun to say to friends again, “Sorry, I can’t tell you which evening next week we could meet, I don’t know what work will look like”. Ask any criminal barrister how many birthday drinks they’ve missed, how many plans they have cancelled last minute, even pre-paid holidays. We make sacrifices constantly in order not to let clients down when their trials are suddenly listed without warning. We give up evenings and weekends to prepare cases. We accept that this is just how it works, it is unpredictable. It is not ‘flexible’ in any way; that the government are referring to extended operating hours as ‘flexible operating hours’ is nothing short of insulting. I expect the decision has already been made in the higher echelons but we as a profession should not stand for it. I do not want to be another statistic of ‘women who have left the Bar because it is incompatible with having a family’. It is boring and disheartening but, worst of all, it is so preventable.
