The Weekly Round Up: Challenge to SC ruling on biological sex, sex offenders banned from claiming asylum, challenge to Israel’s legal duties in the ICJ, and anti-protest Regulations found to be unlawful
6 May 2025
In UK News
The UK’s first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, is bringing an action against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Lord Hodge, in this case, determined that the “unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. McCloud – one of at least two individuals who had unsuccessfully sought leave to intervene in the proceedings – is bringing the action on grounds that her Article 6 rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial, have been infringed. She argues that the Supreme Court refused to hear her evidence about the “impact of those trans people affected by the judgement” and failed to “give any reasons” for doing so. Further, in her submission, the court had not considered human rights arguments that “would have been put by trans people” leaving her with the “nonsense” of being “two sexes at once”. In contrast, the court had heard from “protest groups speaking on behalf of women” in the case. McCloud is now seeking a declaration that “the actions of the UK government and the Supreme court judgement violate her fundamental human rights”.
In an amendment to the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is being considered by Parliament, the Home Office seeks to ban foreign sex offenders from claiming asylum in the UK. The amendment would affect anyone who qualifies for sex offender status. Under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention 1951 countries are entitled to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a particularly serious crime who present a danger to the community. Where a conviction qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders’ register – regardless of the length of sentence they receive – that will lead to their refugee status being denied, on the basis that they will be presumed to have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” . The Government has said that they are “toughening [their] approach to border security through stricter enforcement of the rules”, in an attempt to make “Britain’s streets safer”. Specifically, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has argued the amendment would ensure these “appalling crimes are taken seriously”. Steve Valdez-Symonds, at Amnesty International UK, however, has raised concerns that the Government is “rushing through late-stage amendments” to major legislations meaning that “laws are made without the full scrutiny and care they demand”. In his opinion this is an “irresponsible approach” to lawmaking.
In International News
Over forty countries and bodies made oral submissions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) across five days of hearings on Israel’s legal duties to allow aid to Palestinians and cooperate with UNRWA, the UN’s Palestinian aid agency. Israel stopped allowing aid into Gaza on 2nd March, which it argued was intended to pressure Hamas into releasing hostages. UNRWA was also barred in Gaza by Israel last year on grounds that UNRWA has Hamas members in its ranks. UNRWA has challenged these allegations. The evidence before the ICJ hearings is designed to persuade them that Israel has acted unlawfully by “overriding the immunities and privileges of a UN body”. Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour argued that Israel sought to “deprive the population in Gaza” and to make sure there was “no way to survive”. Humanitarian relief organisations in Gaza have made similar pronouncements. Notably, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini has remarked that a “man-made famine is looming” because individuals are “cut off from humanitarian supplies”. Britain, in turn, insisted that UNRWA should be considered a neutral and impartial body with which Israel must cooperate to facilitate “full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian provision” to the population of Gaza. Israel was not among the 39 countries who spoke at the ICJ this week and instead provided a 37-page written submission to the court outlining how UNRWA has been “infiltrated by Hamas” and asserting why Israel should be able to end cooperation with UNRWA on national security grounds. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said that the hearings were no more than “another attempt to politicise and abuse the legal process in order to persecute Israel”. An advisory opinion from the ICJ is expected within months.
In the Courts
The Court of Appeal in The National Council for Civil Liberties, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571 has upheld the High Court’s decision of May 2024, which found that former Home Secretary Suella Braverman had acted unlawfully when she used statutory instruments to make Regulations that restricted the right to public protest. Specifically, Braverman had made changes to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, giving police broad powers to restrict protest by lowering the threshold at which protestors can have conditions placed on them to anything that caused “more than minor” disruption. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Office’s appeal against the High Court ruling, determining that the Regulations were ultra vires. Agreeing with Liberty and the Public Law Project’s conclusion, Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Edis found that the Public Order Act’s wording of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” reflects legislative intention to set the threshold for police intervention at a high level. For that reason, the Home Secretary could not reasonably change the word “serious” to “more than minor”.
