Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
‘X’ PASSPORTS: JUDICIAL REVIEW FULL HEARING
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker, presiding judge, has reserved his decision on the case. I understand this is normal procedure for judicial review cases and that notification of an outcome will most probably be in written form rather than a further hearing. I’ve not been given a date however am advised that decisions in such cases can typically take two months.
I have necessarily not made direct reference to legal arguments due to the fact that proceedings are ongoing as the court weighs up the arguments before reaching a decision.
Wednesday 18 April 2018
The first day saw my legal counsel Kate Gallafent QC [Blackstone Chambers] present evidence on my behalf as the Claimant in this case. With no exaggeration, Kate was truly phenomenal and made a number of compelling points throughout the day. Kate was assisted by Tom Mountford and Clifford Chance solicitors.
My counsel and all past and present members of my legal team have offered their services on a pro bono basis from the time Clifford Chance responded to my approach in June 2013.
Home Office representatives were in attendance and sitting along from me, my partner and other members of the Clifford Chance team. The Defendant was represented by James Eadie QC [also from Blackstone] and government lawyers.
We were informed early in proceedings that the Defendant had dropped its earlier objection to intervention by global organisation Human Rights Watch [HRW]. I can now report that HRW had applied to intervene in support of my Claim.
I was positive at the end of the day that no one could have done more than my legal team to present a case for the issuance of ‘X’ Passports that surely appears to non-judgemental observers as logical and entirely reasonable.
Thursday 19 April 2018
The second day began with Kate continuing to present evidence on my behalf.
Then came the moment I had dreaded when counsel for the Defendant [the Secretary of State for the Home Department] stood up. It was not easy, thoroughly degrading in fact, to have to listen to arguments being made by my own Government that I, and others in my position, should not be subject to fair and equal treatment. What I can say is that the UK Government’s determined opposition to ‘X’ Passports remains unchanged.
The day was rescued in the afternoon when Kate presented our response to the Defence argument.
The site will be further updated in due course.
There was much interest in the case from the media with news coverage from around the world. The coverage, I am pleased to report, was generally good. And coverage was more balanced in cases where news outlets were judgemental about ‘X’ Passports and the surrounding issue in the past.
Here are some of the articles published last week. Click on the text to open the article.
THOMSON REUTERS FOUNDATION
THE WASHINGTON POST
THE DAILY MAIL
THE DAILY EXPRESS [TRAVEL SECTION]
PS. I would strongly advise anyone affected by this issue and of a sensitive disposition not to read comments where comments are permitted on these articles. And I’d like it known that I am not affected in the slightest by the opinionated, overtly unpleasant and ultimately pointless rantings of ignorant and pathetic individuals with nothing better to do.
I do expect the case to be more widely reported when the decision is announced.