News

Landmark ruling: Supreme Court backs biological definition of woman

Published

8 months ago

April 16, 2025

IN A LANDMARK judgment with far-reaching implications, the UK Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological females. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday (Apr 16), marks a decisive legal victory for gender-critical campaigners and ends years of ambiguity over how the law should treat transgender women in single-sex spaces and public appointments.

The case was brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), who challenged the Scottish Government’s policy allowing transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) to be counted as women on public boards under legislation designed to achieve gender balance.

The Supreme Court ruled that such a definition went beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament and was inconsistent with the meaning of “woman” under the Equality Act.

Women protest outside the supreme court in London last November (Image: Zuma)

Legal clarity on biological sex

Deputy President of the Court, Lord Hodge, said the justices found that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to a biological woman and biological sex. “Although the word ‘biological’ does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman,” he said.

The judges rejected the argument that sex could be interpreted based on GRCs, calling such a view “incoherent” and “fanciful.” They further warned that allowing a definition of sex based on certification would create “heterogeneous groupings” and undermine the protections the law intends to offer.

Implications for single-sex spaces and policies

The ruling affirms that protections under the Equality Act apply to biological sex, enabling organisations to restrict access to women-only spaces and services — such as domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, hospital wards, and changing rooms — based on biological sex rather than legal gender status.

The Court emphasised that the ruling does not diminish the protections transgender people have under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment,” but clarified that a person’s biological sex cannot be altered by acquiring a GRC for the purpose of the Equality Act.

In a key passage, the judges noted: “A man who identifies as a woman who is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will be able to claim on that basis.”

Government and campaign reaction

A UK Government spokesperson welcomed the decision, saying it “brings clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.” Former Equalities Minister and now Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch called it a “victory for women,” adding: “Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.”

Mims Davies MP, the Conservative shadow women’s minister, said the government must now “clarify all existing guidance to ensure public bodies understand that sex means biological sex.”

Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who previously warned that broad definitions of sex could harm women’s rights, said she felt “hugely vindicated” and urged both UK and Scottish governments to implement the ruling into everyday policy.

Lara Brown of the Policy Exchange thinktank said the decision “secured women’s sex-based rights,” adding: “It should never have taken a court case to prove the biological definition of a woman.”

Celebrations and protest

Marion Calder and Susan Smith of For Women Scotland were photographed celebrating outside the Supreme Court, with FWS posting jubilant messages on social media. The group Sex Matters, which intervened in the case, said: “The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork.”

However, trans rights campaigners expressed alarm at the wider impact of the ruling. Scottish Trans urged supporters “not to panic,” while Ellie Gomersall of the Scottish Greens said the judgment “undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.”

Amnesty International, the only trans-inclusive organisation allowed to intervene, warned the case could be the “thin end of the wedge” and potentially erode other rights for transgender people.

Legal background and funding

The ruling concludes a long-running legal battle over the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which sought to ensure 50% female representation and included trans women with GRCs in the definition of “woman.” FWS argued this conflicted with the Equality Act’s definition of sex and that Holyrood had exceeded its legislative competence.

Their challenge was dismissed in the Scottish courts before being brought to the Supreme Court. A crowdfunding campaign led by FWS raised £230,000 for legal costs, including a £70,000 contribution from author JK Rowling.

No transgender individuals were allowed to participate directly in the hearings, a decision criticised by some legal commentators, including retired judge Victoria McCloud, who said an international appeal might have been pursued if the case had gone the other way.

Future legislative reform?

While the ruling interprets existing law, it does not itself change legislation. However, it is expected to lead to renewed calls for Parliament to amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect modern understandings of gender and sex — or to confirm its reliance on biological definitions.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously called for the Act to be clarified, warning that MPs “had not appreciated the consequences for women and lesbians” of the law viewing transgender women with GRCs as legally female.

There are also concerns the ruling may embolden those campaigning to reverse aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, particularly around the legal recognition of acquired gender.

Despite shelving previous reform plans, Labour has indicated it remains committed to protecting transgender rights and is expected to proceed with a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices later this year.

A moment of reckoning

The Herald understands this decision marks a pivotal moment in UK equalities law, drawing a firm legal distinction between sex and gender identity.

For some, it is a long-overdue return to legal clarity and sex-based rights; for others, it represents a retreat from inclusion and a chilling signal to the trans community.

Lord Hodge concluded the judgment by urging restraint, saying: “This should not be seen as a triumph of one group over another.” Yet as the dust settles on the Supreme Court steps, both sides are preparing for what comes next.

News

Angle RNLI launch stood down after false distress beacon alert

Published

39 minutes ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

ANGLE RNLI were paged at 10:47am this morning after an EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) was triggered on a local fishing vessel in the Dale Roads area.

Dale Coastguard Rescue Team was also tasked to investigate the alert.

As the lifeboat crew prepared to launch, further checks by HM Coastguard — along with direct contact from the vessel’s skipper — confirmed the beacon had been activated accidentally.

With no-one found to be in difficulty, the launch was cancelled.

Business

Cardiff Airport announces special Air France flights for Six Nations

Published

2 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Direct services to Paris-Charles de Gaulle launched to cater for Welsh supporters, French fans and couples planning a Valentine’s getaway

CARDIFF AIRPORT and Air France have unveiled a series of special direct flights between Cardiff (CWL) and Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) scheduled for February 2026.

Timed to coincide with two major dates — the Wales v France Six Nations clash on Saturday 15 February and Valentine’s weekend — the flights are designed to offer supporters and holidaymakers an easy link between the two capitals.

For travelling French rugby fans, the services provide a straightforward route into Wales ahead of match day at the Principality Stadium, when Cardiff will once again be transformed by the colour, noise and passion that accompanies one of the tournament’s most eagerly awaited fixtures.

For Welsh passengers, the additional flights offer a seamless escape to Paris for Valentine’s Day, as well as opportunities for short breaks and onward travel via Air France’s wider global network.

Cardiff Airport CEO Jon Bridge said: “We’re thrilled to offer direct flights to such a vibrant and exciting city for Valentine’s weekend. Cardiff Airport is expanding its reach and giving customers fantastic travel options. We’ve listened to passenger demand and are delighted to make this opportunity possible. There is more to come from Cardiff.”

Tickets are already on sale via the Air France website and through travel agents.

Special flight schedule

Paris (CDG) → Cardiff (CWL):

13 February 2026: AF4148 departs 17:00 (arrives 17:30)
14 February 2026: AF4148 departs 14:00 (arrives 14:30)
15 February 2026: AF4148 departs 08:00 (arrives 08:30)
15 February 2026: AF4150 departs 19:40 (arrives 20:10)
16 February 2026: AF4148 departs 08:00 (arrives 08:30)
16 February 2026: AF4150 departs 16:30 (arrives 17:00)

Cardiff (CWL) → Paris (CDG):

13 February 2026: AF4149 departs 18:20 (arrives 20:50)
14 February 2026: AF4149 departs 15:20 (arrives 17:50)
15 February 2026: AF4149 departs 09:20 (arrives 11:50)
15 February 2026: AF4151 departs 21:00 (arrives 23:30)
16 February 2026: AF4149 departs 09:20 (arrives 11:50)
16 February 2026: AF4151 departs 17:50 (arrives 20:20)

Crime

Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone

Published

4 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child

A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.

Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.

Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:

She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.

The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.

Key moments from the cross-examination

Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”

Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”

When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:

“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”

She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.

Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:

“The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
“It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
“You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
“This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”

The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that: