Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the women’s pensions #backto60 case, unanimously dismissing the appeal. Court ruled there was 1. no age discrimination, 2. sufficient notice to those affected by changes by DWP, 3. too long a delay in seeking judicial review
No age or sex discrimination, I should have said. The ruling will be a bitter disappointment to campaigners and crowdfunding supporters of the appeal
A disappointment exacerbated by the way in which expectations of the outcome (that the legal arguments would prevail, and that individual women would receive financial restitution) were raised by the campaigners, hand in hand with crowdfunding which lacked transparency
And an inevitable consequence of the way in which expectations were raised and have been disappointed is to undermine supporters' confidence in the legal system and the integrity of judges
Even today, the #backto60 campaign’s leader refers to “full restitution” for the women affected, but today’s judgment makes it clear that they asked the court only for a declaration of unlawfulness, not restitution
A week after the last general election. The founder and executive director of the Good Law Project sends a WhatsApp to the incoming minister for health, seeking to influence a litigation/policy decision. The GLP litigated *against* the previous government about this sort of thing
In what world could Wes Streeting have properly made a decision whether or not to actively defend in litigation a GLP judicial review of regulations made by the outgoing minister (Victoria Atkins) that was influenced in any way by a billet-doux from the GLP’s executive director?
The response to this revelation should be one of pure principle. If you think a Minister should have replied to this message about a judicial review against him from a campaigner you admire, imagine how you would feel about a similar message from a campaigner you deprecate
Fabian has been a mutual for some time, but I can’t accept this story as a minor slip deserving sympathy. It is dishonest to claim an unearned qualification. And there is a history in which he has described himself as a barrister. He is not. These things matter in our profession
Source for the screenshot of a document in which he held himself out as being a “barrister at law (England and Wales)” in around 2019. As he does not have the protected professional title of “advocaat” in the Netherlands, he is restricted in the legal work he can undertake there
These posts are about the account of Fabian Krougman @fkrougman which was a public account until a little earlier today. It was the subject of this story published by @RollOnFridayWeb and further revelations diligently unearthed by @anonlawprof since then rollonfriday.com/news-content/e…
A genuine win for the Good Law Project, supporters’ money spent on achieving success in court, in this High Court judgment reversing a decision of the Gender Recognition Panel about an individual transitioning F to M whilst attempting to conceive a child judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
The panel’s task, in which they erred in this case, is to decide whether an applicant has been living in their acquired gender (LAG). The judge explains that this legal concept is more “subtle and nuanced” than the simple proposition that pregnancy is inconsistent with being male
It’s well worth reading the judgment to understand its reasoning. It is purely about the meaning of the legal concept of gender recognition. This judge always writes very clearly and in a way that is sensitive to individual people’s lives and to contemporary social attitudes
Newly-formed @LawForBorders encourages local authorities to “consider legal battles” over hotels housing asylum-seekers. Non-practising barrister Steven Barrett says “we” in speaking of that organisation. Nonsense for him to now say “these issues should not be handled by a judge”
Epping’s application for an injunction in the exercise of its functions as local planning authority was strategic litigation or “lawfare”. It was foreseeable that the first instance judgment might not survive an appeal. It’s absurd to now complain that judges are involved in it
Barrett has also published a judicial conduct complaint he has made, alleging that Lord Justice Bean should have recused himself for apparent bias because of his political associations before being appointed a judge. This is fatuous, not comparable to Pinochet/Hoffmann/Amnesty
HHJ Greenberg has now sentenced Farah Damji to 5 1/2 years immediate custody for stalking and two concurrent sentences of 6 months for fraud to run consecutively to the sentence for stalking, making a total of 6 years immediate custody on these convictions
Note comments of HHJ Greenberg aliases used by Farah Damji in the commission of these offences: 1. Her claim that her victim who knew her as “Noor Higham” was aware of her true name and criminal history “was a lie”. Noor Higham’s name is still registered at Companies House
GLP latest. Which is more likely? A commercial landlord actively letting office space in a large building in central London has decided to seek an injunction against protests to protect its interest in income from the building, or that it’s done so “at the bidding” of the EHRC?
This may all make for a powerful soundbite to promote crowdfunding, but the EHRC’s presence here is as a tenant of a commercial landlord. The right to protest as a human right protected by the EHRC is a right against a public authority, not a private property owner
Apparently the landlord’s application for an injunction was refused, with reasons to follow (probably because protest has now ended and judge not persuaded an injunction needed now to deal with any threat of future protests), but that doesn’t alter the points made in these posts