At the risk of repeating myself …… actually, I don’t care if I do repeat myself. I keep raising the same subjects, because the same subjects keep coming up! A case in point is the Judicial Review of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) guidance on trans prisoners being lodged in woman’s prisons. Thought that had been settled by the Supreme Courts decision that sex means biological sex in all matters that relate to equality? Well, you were wrong!!! The SNP had to be dragged back into court to hear the presiding Judge explain it to them in simple language,
Judge Lady Ross said, external sex segregation in prisons must be based on biological sex, based on a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman in equality law in April last year. BBC 19/06/26
I have reproduced the Summary of the Judgement below and you can see the SNP’s Human Rights argument, especially under section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, being considered and dismissed. Of course, they knew their argument was spurious but right from the beginning they have left no stone unturned to sneak this unpopular and ideologically driven policy on the public. I wrote about this in 2020 where I wondered whether I was the Last Feminist standing. In my essay we got to meet Stephen Terence Wood
who is a really nasty piece of work as you can see from the essay. He had a history of sex offenses against women and girls but was remanded to a women’s prison on claiming that he was a trans woman called Karen White. It turns out that no one checked his criminal record until he raped two woman prisoners and only then was he retransferred to a male prison. You might say that Stephen Woods case was criminal neglect by the English authorities and would never happen under the SNP guided Scottish
Prison Service (SPS). Let me refer you to my essay on The Gender Recognition Reform Bill . In this essay I introduced the rapist and the paedophile, both 100% home grown Scots. Andrew Burns ,the Paedophile, became Tiffany, after having an Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) placed on him. He was once known as the most dangerous prisoner in Scotland. Unbelievably, his application to be moved to a women’s prison was approved in 2023. Woman prisoners were only saved from this violent man by the public uproar which
resulted from the rapist, Adam Graham, being remanded to a woman’s prison whilst his case was being heard. The SPS only changed their trans policy after the backlash from the public. They were not helped by the Justice Minister and Nicola Sturgeon throwing them under the bus, over the debacle. However, you can see from my essay that the SNP were up to their neck in pushing Trans policy, despite their protestations.
Why drag up old cases where vulnerable women have been abused by the authorities. Should I not be celebrating yet another success of the formidable For Women Scotland? But isn’t that the point? This group of ordinary, yet extra ordinary women have had to battle an intransigent SNP every inch of the way to reach the Supreme Court. The current First Minister, John Swinney, is only the latest in a line of First Ministers, who promote the progressive agenda. We all thought that the Supreme Court decision was the final nail in the coffin of the Trans religion but it seems that we have to battle on until we have figuratively put a stake through their hearts. I will make a prediction that even though Scottish Justice Secretary, Neil Gray, has said that he will not appeal the findings, there are a number of minions looking at section 126, to see whether there is any wriggle room there. As the For Women Scotland said,
We hope that, in future, the Scottish Government will start to listen to us rather than the lobby groups who drafted these policies and have so egregiously misled MSPs and MPs. FWS
I wholeheartedly agree with them but do I trust the SNP and it’s cronies? Unfortunately, I think that the FWS and all good people need to be alert and ready for the next battle with the enemies of common sense and goodwill.
Appendix 1 – Summary of the Women Scotland for Judicial Review
Summary and conclusion
[177] In the present proceedings, the petitioner challenges the Prisons Guidance at a policy level. In order to advance this argument, based on the statutory scheme, comprising the EA 2010, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 and the 2011 Prisons Rules, and with reference to sex discrimination, it is not necessary to consider evidence relating to the facts of individual cases. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the first respondents’ policy on the basis that
it mis-states the law. The respondents’ arguments in relation to relevancy are not
well-founded.
[178] Sex segregation in prisons in Scotland is lawful. The statutory scheme, based on the EA 2010 and the 2011 Rules, requires separate prison accommodation for men and women. Following FWS 2, this means sex segregation in prisons according to biological sex.
[179] Insofar as the Prisons Guidance allows SPS to accommodate trans prisoners in prisons for the opposite biological sex, it is in conflict with the requirement that prison accommodation be provided separately for men and women. That constitutes a mis-statement of the law.
[180] Equal opportunities are a reserved matter in terms of section L2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Insofar as the Prisons Guidance allows the SPS to accommodate trans prisoners in prisons for the opposite biological sex, it is in conflict with the law for the time being relating to equal opportunities, within the meaning of section L2. Applying the Prisons Guidance would be outside the first respondents’ powers in terms of section 54(3) of the Scotland Act 1998.
[181] All prisoners have rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Trans prisoners have rights under Article 8, but this does not extend to a right to be accommodated in a prison for the opposite biological sex. Article 8 rights are qualified and there is a justification for maintaining sex segregation in prisons. The statutory scheme imposes a bright line rule and sex segregation in prisons does not admit of exceptions on the basis of Article 8 rights.
[182] There are obligations in terms of Article 2 to protect life and Article 3 not to subject prisoners to inhuman or degrading treatment. There is no positive obligation, in general terms, based on Article 2 or Article 3, to accommodate a trans prisoner in a prison for the opposite biological sex
[183] On the basis that the first respondents are exercising a public function and that section 29(6) and Schedule 22 apply, the question of disapplication of rule 126 may arise. It is possible that, in an exceptional individual case, in a situation where there is a threat to life through suicide, it may be necessary to consider an argument that accommodation in a prison for the opposite biological sex is necessary and that rule 126 should be disapplied. Whether that could be achieved compatibly with the requirements of the EA 2010 cannot be
determined in the abstract. In any event, disapplication or disregard of subordinate legislation cannot form part of a general policy.
[184] In all the circumstances, the Prisons Guidance is unlawful and the petitioner is entitled to orders for declarator and reduction. I will put the case out by order to allow for submissions on the appropriate terms of the interlocutor.
Click to access 2026csoh59-petition-of-for-women-scotland-for-judicial-review.pdf
