Supreme Court hands down judgment on definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010
The Supreme Court has today handed down judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers allowing For Women Scotland’s appeal. It held that statutory definition of “sex” (and of “man” and “woman”) under the Equality Act 2010 (EA) is biological such that the issue of a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not alter a person’s sex for the purposes of the EA. The Supreme Court considered that its interpretation would not cause disadvantage to trans people and explained the scope of the protections against direct discrimination, harassment and indirect discrimination which trans people have under the EA.
Aidan O’Neill KC acts for the Appellant, For Women Scotland, instructed by Balfour + Manson.
The Judgment can be found here.
The Court’s press summary can be found here.
Back
Easter Opening hours 2025
The stable will be closed on the following days over the Easter period:
- Friday, 18th April 2025, and;
- Monday 21st April 2025.
When the office is closed emails and telephones will not be monitored. During those times you can contact an advocate directly via the contact details on their own profile. Please look out for out of office auto replies if counsel are not available.
Normal business hours resume from Tuesday, 22nd April 2025.
Back
Determination into the deaths of Leo Lamont, Ellie McCormick and Mira-belle Bosch
Ampersand’s Vinit Khurana KC acted for the Scottish Ambulance Service and James McConnell KC and Scott Clair acted for Greater Glasgow Health Board in this Fatal Accident Inquiry. The Inquiry was into three neonatal deaths, and was presided over by Sheriff Principal Anwar. Her detailed determination, extending to over two hundred pages, can be accessed here.
Back
David Downie v Fife Health Board
Ampersand’s Scott Clair acted as junior counsel to Craig Allardice for the pursuer, and James McConnell KC acted for the defenders, in this case which went to proof on allegations of negligence by a psychiatrist. The case has some procedural history, having been to the Sheriff Appeal Court on relevancy questions before finally coming to proof.
The pursuer is a former professional golfer who, on 14 January 2016, was made the subject of compulsory detention for mental health reasons. After four days of detention a psychiatrist reviewed him, concluded that he no longer met the criteria for detention, and revoked the Short-Term Detention Certificate under which he had been detained. The pursuer thereafter discharged himself against medical advice.
The pursuer contended that the psychiatrist’s decision to revoke the STDC was a negligent one, and said that as a result of that revocation he experienced a period of untreated illness. The defenders argued that the decision to revoke the discharge certificate was the correct one, and that in any event no relevant causal consequences flowed from the revocation.
The case came to proof before Sheriff Campbell KC. He preferred the evidence of the defenders’ expert psychiatrist, and found that the treating psychiatrist had not breached his duty and granted decree of absolvitor.
The Judgment of Sheriff Campbell can be found here.
Back
Lynda O’Neill and others v Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Ampersand’s Lauren Sutherland KC acted for the pursuers with Hugh Masters as junior counsel, instructed by Drummond Miller LLP, in this sad case which arose out of the death in June 2020 of Brian O’Neill. At the time of his death Mr O’Neill was visiting an off-grid hutting community. One evening he fell and sustained a significant laceration to his head. He was attended to in the first place by a psychiatrist, who was also visiting the hutting community and who was, to that extent, “off duty”. A 999 call was made and triaged into the ‘green category’ to be the subject of further triage.
A second 999 call followed, made by a paramedic employed by the defenders. The call was, in substance, to the psychiatrist. The content of the call was very controversial. The psychiatrist’s evidence was that she felt that Mr O’Neill needed to go to hospital, and told the paramedic that. The paramedic gave evidence that the psychiatrist said that she would look after Mr O’Neill without further assistance. After the call ended an ambulance was not sent. The psychiatrist left Mr O’Neill in his hut overnight.
The following morning Mr O’Neill was found on the floor of his hut. He was not breathing and a third 999 call was made. Ambulances were despatched but he could not be resuscitated.
The nub of the case was the second 999 call. The pursuers argued that the paramedic who made it should have sent an ambulance. The defenders argued that the psychiatrist had told the paramedic that an ambulance was not required, and that it was reasonable in those circumstances for the paramedic to decide not to send an ambulance.
The case came to proof before Lord Young. He preferred the evidence of the psychiatrist and found the paramedic to have breached her duty by not sending an ambulance after the second 999 call. He awarded the pursuers more than half a million pounds in damages.
The Opinion of Lord Young can be viewed here.
Back
FAI determination into deaths at HMPYOI Polmont issued
Sheriff Collins K.C. has issued his determination following a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths by suicide of Katie Alan and William Brown at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Polmont (“Polmont”) in 2018. Ampersand Advocates’ Paul Reid K.C. acted on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (“SPS”) and Isla Davie K.C. and Shane Dundas, Advocate acted on behalf of Forth Valley Health Board.
As both deaths occurred in custody, the Inquiry was mandatory in terms of s.2(4)(a) of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). Whilst the deaths of Katie and William were not directly connected, the Lord Advocate determined that the deaths occurred in similar circumstances and a single inquiry was therefore held under s.14 of the 2016 Act. The FAI was heard at Falkirk Sheriff Court in a specially configured court, in which the inquiry into the M9 crash had also recently been heard.
The purpose of the Inquiry was to establish the circumstances of the deaths and consider what steps (if any) might be taken to prevent other deaths in similar circumstances in the future. Evidence was heard over a period of around four weeks.
In relation to Katie’s death, the Sheriff found that there were failures to identify, record and share information relevant to Katie’s risk in accordance with the suicide prevention scheme operated within Polmont. Notwithstanding that, it was not established, but for those failures, that Katie’s death might realistically have been avoided. The Sheriff found that Katie’s death was spontaneous and unpredictable and the evidence did not suggest that Katie should have been assessed as being at a risk of death by suicide prior to her death. However, the Sheriff found that it would have been a reasonable precaution to accommodate Katie in a cell that did not have a rectangular toilet cubicle door stop (which the Sheriff noted was a recognised potential ligature anchor point). That being so, the Sheriff found that removal of that potential ligature point would have been a reasonable precaution which, if taken, might realistically have avoided the death. In connection with that, the Sheriff held that a defect in the system of working which contributed to Katie’s death was that there was no system in place to regularly audit Katie’s cell for the presence of ligature anchor points or to remove or reduce such points as had been identified.
In relation to William’s death, the Sheriff found that there were several reasonable precautions which, if taken, might realistically have avoided his death. Those included: (i) keeping William on Talk to Me (“TTM”) (the suicide prevention strategy implemented in Polmont) observations rather than removing him therefrom the day after his admission; (ii) when further information was received about William’s background, reassessing William and putting him back onto the TTM strategy; and (iii) accommodating William in a cell which did not have a bunk bed in it, or otherwise removing the bunk bed. The Sheriff also found that there were several defects in the system of working. In addition to the same defect identified in relation to Katie’s death, defects which were identified as contributing to William’s death related to information sharing, actioning mental health referrals and the removal of persons from TTM in the absence of background information about them or their risk of suicide.
The Sheriff made several recommendations following the deaths of Katie and William. Those recommendations related to improving ligature prevention within Polmont, piloting the use of suicide prevention technology within Polmont, improving the system for acting on referrals made by the mental health team, improving the system of information sharing and recording between the courts, external agencies (including the families of those in custody), SPS and Forth Valley Health Board, and undertaking further training of staff. In addition, the Sheriff identified several matters which he recommended should be considered during the review of TTM which is already being undertaken by SPS (and, in connection with that, the Sheriff recommended that all Death in Prison Learning Audit Reviews should consider the safety of the physical environment when a prisoner dies by suicide).
Back
