Alexander Horne

In a landmark judgment, after years of controversy, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers today. The issue the court had to determine was enormously significant, namely the meaning of 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010. In a detailed and compelling ruling, the UK’s top court unanimously concluded that the terms refer to biological sex. The case arose following a decision by the Scottish government in 2022 to introduce revised statutory guidance which stated that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) would be considered a woman for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (which was designed to increase the proportion of women on public boards).

In a decision that will be welcomed by many in Parliament today, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed a claim by prominent businessman Sir Philip Green. Green had argued that his right to a private life and a fair trial had been infringed when a Labour Peer, Peter Hain, made a statement on the floor of the House of Lords claiming Green had been accused of sexual harassment and bullying by former employees. The employees in question had signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and so Green had obtained an interim injunction (pending a trial) and anonymity order from the Court of Appeal after he learned that the Daily Telegraph planned to report on these allegations. These orders effectively prevented the Daily Telegraph from reporting on the claims against him.

Almost every day there seem to be new headlines about abuses of the asylum and immigration system. The latest involves the case of a Gazan family who were granted the right to remain in the United Kingdom after they applied to enter the country under the Ukraine Family Scheme visa. Unsurprisingly, the Home Office determined that the Gazan family did not qualify for the Ukrainian scheme. The government also concluded there were no compelling, compassionate circumstances to justify the family remaining in the UK. The family’s initial application was dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal judge in September last year.

This week, the House of Commons is focusing its attention on proposed reforms to the House of Lords. MPs backed plans to get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers on Tuesday, while a second bill which will increase the number of female bishops in the Lords had its second reading on Thursday. The contrasting nature of the two bills highlights the rather problematic way Labour is pursuing constitutional reform. The Labour party’s 2024 manifesto made a number of promises on House of Lords reform. It pledged to remove hereditary peers, instate a mandatory retirement age, and included a commitment to introduce ‘an alternative second chamber which is more representative of the regions and nations’.

Last night, during his first debate with Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick was keen to highlight his flagship policy on exiting the ECHR, using it as a dividing line to emphasise his anti-immigration credentials. He pitched the question as ‘leave or remain’.  This is an unfortunate move on two fronts. First, leaving the ECHR is unlikely to have the practical effect he hopes in stopping the small boats, or combatting illegal immigration. Second, it risks looking like he is merely chasing the Reform vote and is uninterested in reuniting his fractured party.

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the UK Supreme Court. When it opened its doors in 2009, it was argued that separating the country’s top judges from their historical home in parliament was a defining moment in the constitutional history of the UK. Fifteen years later, it’s hard to see whether anything significant has really changed. The Supreme Court was proposed by the Blair Government in 2003, as part of a botched set of reforms to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor and reform judicial appointments. It came as a surprise, not only to the then-Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine (who was replaced by Blair’s former flatmate, Charlie Falconer), but also to many senior judges and officials, who found out about the change on the news while at an away-day.

One of the first things Keir Starmer did on entering Downing Street in July was to abandon the previous government’s Rwanda asylum partnership. The Prime Minister said Rishi Sunak's flagship scheme was a costly gimmick. But it now appears the PM is considering an asylum processing scheme of his own, which could see migrants removed to Albania. Speaking ahead of a visit to Rome today to meet with the Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Starmer said he was 'interested' to see how Italy's own migrant processing scheme with Albania might work. He revealed he had already had some discussions with Meloni on how the two can 'work together on irregular migration'.

Apple must pay €13 billion (£11 billion) in unpaid taxes, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled, bringing to an end a long-running dispute involving the tech company and the government of Ireland. The ruling by the EU’s top court is a huge win for the European Commission (and the outgoing Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager) against aggressive tax planning by large multinational companies. It is a major blow to the Irish government.  Following the publication of the judgment, the Irish government seemed positively disappointed The case has a long and convoluted history. In 2016, the Commission determined that subsidiary companies belonging to the Apple Group had, historically, received tax advantages that constituted state aid from Ireland.

The Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has reportedly 'ordered a review' of Britain’s counter-extremism strategy. According to the Daily Telegraph, she was minded to treat ‘extreme misogyny’ as terrorism for the first time. It is suggested that the review would be completed later in the autumn, and that a new counter-extremism strategy would be launched early next year. When discussing this issue, it is tempting to use the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ interchangeably. In law, however, they are not identical and should not be conflated.

Labour’s plans for Lords reform, announced during the King’s Speech this morning, do not come as a great surprise. It promised measures to ‘modernise the constitution’ and ‘remove the right of hereditary peers’ to sit and vote in the Lords via a House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. These plans were heralded in the Labour party manifesto, which pledged ‘immediate reform of the House of Lords’. They are, nonetheless, both unambitious and in some respects unwise. These changes will not bring Labour much credit The reforms proposed in the manifesto included the removal of the remaining 92 hereditary peers; the introduction of a compulsory retirement age; a revised participation requirement and new powers to remove ‘disgraced Members’.

Yesterday afternoon, in a striking move, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court, ordered Israel to stop military operations in Rafah and to immediately reopen the Rafah border crossing with Egypt for the unhindered provision of humanitarian aid. The ICJ also ordered Israel to allow the UN to investigate allegations of genocide. This dramatic step is the culmination of a bad month for the Israeli Government. Earlier in May, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor said he was seeking the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes.