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
This latest GLP crowdfunder is unsurprisingly controversial. I’m not going to repeat the talking points for or against the merits of the legislation. There is a link to a pre-action letter which sets out the legal arguments. But how persuasive are they?
Supporters have no access to or indication of the privileged advice on the merits given by the lawyers in the case. And the GLP has not updated its records spreadsheet to show that its most recent crowdfunded judicial review, on voter ID, failed to get permission, as unarguable
The claimant in the case is TransActual CIC. It has instructed its own solicitors and barristers, but not used its own funds. The GLP’s role is just crowdfunding the case, for which it takes 10p in every £ donated and keeps any surplus out of the £75,000 target for its own work
Matthew Parris’s vision of euthanasia is one where people of full mental capacity and free of coercive influence will rationally choose to “check out early”. It’s a callous vision and it takes no account of frailty, folly, or loss of freedom in making a life or death decision
This case of a man who killed his mother and was indulgently sentenced for his offence was reported this week. I’m troubled by it. Imagine the same events happening in the moral universe Matthew Parris describes? The Sixth Commandment in shades of grey thetimes.co.uk/article/man-wh…
The judge accepted that the son, who had given up work to become a full-time carer for his mother, believed that death was the only solution. But he had *no* right to impose that belief on his mother, who was then incapable of understanding or making such a decision for herself
The one thing this isn’t is charitable. The crowdfunding page names no lawyers, but describes Chris Packham himself as the case owner. He is not a charity. There is no link to any pre-litigation correspondence or draft grounds of claim, or statement of how a surplus will be used
This link is more informative and makes it clear that there are lawyers acting in the case. But why does Chris Packham, who owes his public prominence to work for the BBC, a public service broadcaster funded by licence payers, need to crowdfund for this litigation?
A new litigation crowdfunder for a “class action” on behalf of “all” 1950s born women affected by state pension age increases. This appears to be a successor project to a “CEDAW people’s tribunal” which followed the failed crowdfunded #backto60 litigation
The litigation prospectus is very vague, and the legal structure and identity of individuals responsible the organisation behind it is opaque. If, as it appears to be, it is a successor organisation to BackTo60, prospective donors should know its history thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions…
HT @BrokenBarnet for drawing this to my attention in an earlier post
Congratulations to @AllianceLGB who have now announced that they have won the case and defeated the challenge to their charitable status brought by @Mermaids_Gender with the support of @GoodLawProject. I look forward to reading the judgment. This is a good outcome for charity law
Statement from @mermaids_gender which explains that Mermaids’ challenge failed on the issue of standing, but that the tribunal was divided on the issue of whether or not LGBA was entitled to be registered as a charity
@Mermaids_Gender I disagree with the assertion that this “puts a huge question mark over LGBA’s status (subject to any appeal of the decision). A registered charity is a registered charity, and as the tribunal appear to have said, that may bring closer scrutiny of its activities by the regulator
Judgment of First Tier Tribunal in @Mermaids_Gender challenge to decision of Charity Commission to register @AllianceLGB as a charity to be published, after v long delay, at 10am on Thursday 6 July. A significant case on standing to appeal such a decision, and on the issues 1/2
Evidence heard as long ago as September 2022, and legal arguments in November. Unfair on the participants, especially LGBA, to have to wait so long for a decision. Worth revisiting the legal arguments, published here
and here
https://t.co/rIb3LRWZGs 2/2lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/upl… mermaidsuk.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
I make no predictions of outcome, but Mermaids’ case is a difficult one on the standing issue. Also important to note that - The tribunal will not rule on any ideological conflict between the charities
- Mermaids itself is not on trial. It has to prove standing, but nothing else