Jolyon Maugham KC
LightNews LightNews
goodlawproject.org
Jolyon Maugham KC
@goodlawproject.org
73K followers 610 following 4.1K posts
Founder and Director, Good Law Project. King's Counsel. Hon Prof at Durham University.

Live your values. Fight the power. Keep the receipts.

He/him.

https://goodlaw.social/nm7n
Posts Replies Media Videos
goodlawproject.org
And for this - I can't quite believe I am defending Bridget Phillipson who pushed the same anti feminist and legally asinine EHRC predicate in the aftermath of For Some Women Scotland - she is accused of "poor judgment" by (physician, heal thyself!) Britain's most dishonest paper, The Times.
December 20, 2025 at 7:28 AM
goodlawproject.org
And she takes cognisance of the fact that even The Times leader recognises (see below) we may well win our case. And she recognises that the EHRC changed its guidance multiple times. And she recognises what Lord Hodge said in The Times and she decides to wait for the High Court decision.
Ms Phillipson’s poor judgment is deeply concerning. It indicates that her ongoing refusal to publish the EHRC’s guidance is part of a deliberate strategy to subvert the verdict of the UK’s highest court. Should the GLP win its case, she may use that as a pretext to further undermine the victory women’s rights campaigners secured in April.
December 20, 2025 at 7:23 AM
goodlawproject.org
It's the routine lying of The Times which causes me to refer to it as Britain's most dishonest newspaper.

But what, there's more. We then have this. The Leader talks about Good Law Project as having "a record of pursuing unpromising political causes through the courts." What does that even mean?
Worryingly, however, Ms Phillipson too seems to harbour ill-founded misgivings about UK equality law. The Good Law Project (GLP), a non-profit with a record of pursuing unpromising political causes through the courts, is challenging an interim ­version of the EHRC’s guidelines. In her own submission to the case, Ms Phillipson agrees the EHRC’s guidance is discriminatory and must be qualified with “commonsense” exceptions. She brands the guidance “trans exclusive”, a bizarre mischaracterisation of the legal effort to protect women’s sex-based rights.
December 20, 2025 at 6:57 AM
goodlawproject.org
You don't need to take my word for this. You can just read what Lord Hodge - the judge of the Supreme Court who presided over the case said himself, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE TIMES. He could hardly be clearer that the case was not about single sex spaces.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, for the purposes of the act, a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth — that is, biological sex. It meant that public bodies, providing toilet or bathing spaces, had to provide separate facilities for transgender people, a ruling that is still being argued across the country. Hodge, who presided over the case with two female justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created. Hodge, who presided over the case with two female justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created.
December 20, 2025 at 6:54 AM
goodlawproject.org
A quite demented Leader column published today by The Times.

First, this in which it says that the Supreme Court decision mandated that single sex spaces be divided on the basis of "biology" not gender.
For more than three months, Ms Phillipson has stalled in publishing draft guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Those 300 pages, efficiently produced after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in April, explain in detail how businesses and public bodies can ensure they comply with their legal duties under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court determined that UK equality law protected women on the basis of their sex, not their gender identity. Upholding women’s existing legal rights therefore requires that where services and spaces are provided to men and women separately, they must be administered on the basis of biology — meaning sex, not gender.
December 20, 2025 at 6:47 AM
goodlawproject.org
Yeah, I read it this morning and also found this, just casually dropped into the piece apropos of nothing beyond The Times' islamophobia, pretty horrifying.
The grooming gang outrages suggest that some ethnic subcultures knowingly license misogyny. On Times Radio on Thursday morning Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, was asked about an Islamic charity in Birmingham whose imam had said a husband was allowed to hit his wife and shake her, as long as it doesn’t bruise or break bones, if she refused sex, and the Charity Commission had not intervened. Phillips replied that the government had to ensure that the commission had all the powers it needed. “That is absolutely disgraceful,” she said, “and I personally don’t think they should get any charitable funding.”
December 19, 2025 at 11:46 AM
goodlawproject.org
The tragic reality about violence against women and girls: unless it's an issue which can be weaponised to bash trans people or migrants no one gives a fuck.
Amnesty Feminists Instagram post showing an empty house of Commons listening to the Government's new violence against women and girls strategy
December 19, 2025 at 10:21 AM
goodlawproject.org
Just in case there was any doubt about Mary-Ann Stephenson being both biased (so unqualified to Chair the EHRC) and out of her depth here she hangs her hat on the hideous guidance drawn up by her predecessor - without waiting for the results of the High Court challenge which may find it unlawful.
A spokesman for the EHRC said: “We have urged the minister to lay the updated Code of Practice before Parliament as soon as possible, so that up-to-date statutory guidance can be made available to those that need it. “We remain ready to provide any evidence we can that would materially assist the minister’s approval.”
December 19, 2025 at 9:29 AM
goodlawproject.org
Ofcom now spreading fake news? Its most complained about programme of 2025 apparently had 3,547 complaints - but look what it says about Number 5. (www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and...)
5. Headliners, GB News, 22 January 2025 – 1,391 complaint Complainants objected to a presenter’s comment they believed linked the LGBTQ+ community to paedophiles. Our investigation found the live programme broke broadcasting rules by including a highly offensive remark which was not justified by the context, falling short of generally accepted standards. In addition to these complaints submitted directly by individuals to Ofcom, the Good Law Project gathered 71,851 complaints and provided them to Ofcom.
December 19, 2025 at 8:53 AM
goodlawproject.org
Russian billionaire Alex Gerko is amongst the funders of the Cambridge Union TERF society, reports The Times.
The society has attracted external financial support. In its first two weeks, it raised more than £13,000 in donations from more than 200 donors, including £3,000 from Alex Gerko, a billionaire hedge fund founder who supports maths teaching in UK schools.
December 19, 2025 at 7:31 AM
goodlawproject.org
The papers are slowly waking up to quite how significant is @goodlawproject.bsky.social's challenge to the transphobic EHRC's interim guidance. If we succeed it's hard to see how its draft statutory guidance can be lawful.
December 19, 2025 at 7:26 AM
goodlawproject.org
"The concerns about bone density do not apparently justify a ban on puberty blockers generally but only when used for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence."
[178] The total ban appears to make negative consequences inevitable for some transgender youth and there is an argument that it is discriminatory. That is because there is no doubt that puberty blockers are regarded as sufficiently safe to treat precocious puberty, and children begin puberty blockers earlier and remain on them for longer when used for that purpose. The concerns about bone density do not apparently justify a ban on puberty blockers generally but only when used for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.
December 17, 2025 at 10:02 AM
goodlawproject.org
New Zealand's libertarian/ populist/ right wing coalition Government is trying to follow Wesley Streeting's lead in banning puberty blockers.

This is what the New Zealand High Court has just decided (www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases...).
[17] There is also no evidence of a particular need to act urgently to prevent new prescriptions because of some immediate risk to physical health if young people commence treatment. [18] Puberty blockers are reversible. There is no evidence that they affect fertility. If they did, they would hardly be prescribed for children with precocious puberty and they have been prescribed for that purpose for decades. They may alleviate distress for a child who is simply not ready to cope with puberty either because they are too young or because their mental health is such that a delay is recommended. The only evidence-based impact on physical health is on bone density and that impact results from long term use. A period of months until the Judicial Review can be heard is not said to create any issues with bone density for a young person commencing treatment. [19] The evidence relating to mental health outcomes suggests negative outcomes from a ban are a far more immediate concern.
December 17, 2025 at 9:59 AM
goodlawproject.org
I've made a complaint to the BBC about its bald misstatement of the truth about what the Supreme Court decided in the For (Some) Women Scotland decision.
"In her Introduction to her interview with Mary-Ann Stephenson Laura Kuenssberg said. "Attention has often focused on who should be able to access single-sex spaces whether changing rooms or girls' sports teams but the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling in April that it was biological sex not a person's chosen gender that should determine that answer." That sentence is simply wrong. The easiest way to explain why is to refer to an interview published with the presiding Supreme Court judge in that April decision, Lord Hodge, In The Times on 12 September 2025 which contains these paragraphs: "Hodge, who presided over the case with two female Justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created. These points weren't argued before us,' he said. "We were not there to decide points that were not put to us or were not raised in the course of argument, because we hadn't heard each side's position on it." With her statement Ms Kuenssberg stepped Into a highly contentious area and baldly misrepresented the truth. I would like her to issue a clarification and apology, please."
December 16, 2025 at 11:51 AM
goodlawproject.org
The Telegraph is worried about Starmer being replaced.
Telegraph headline: Labour leadership coup 'risks triggering market chaos'
December 15, 2025 at 9:01 PM
goodlawproject.org
Asked directly by Kuenssberg whether a trans woman is a woman Mary-Ann Stephenson can't bring herself to say yes. My role is enforcing the Equality Act, she says, and under that Act, no.

This is legally inaccurate - her role is far broader (see below) - and powerful evidence of her bigotry.
December 14, 2025 at 11:54 AM
goodlawproject.org
Second, she then completely misstates what the Supreme Court decided. She says it decided the question of who should be able to access single sex spaces. That's just flat out mis or disnformation. Here's what Lord Hodge said.
December 14, 2025 at 11:35 AM
goodlawproject.org
It is true that the uncorrected version of the Sandie Peggie decision miscites Forstater as being the source for the proposition that the Equality Act contains no hierarchy of rights. But the proposition is plainly correct, and is found in eg Turani [2019] EWHC 1586 (Admin).
December 11, 2025 at 11:47 AM
goodlawproject.org
No one can be surprised by the rank hypocrisy of Murdoch's 'Trump is a feminist hero' and 'Ending Roe v Wade was right' Times. But worth noting the difference between when it gets what it wants from the judiciary and when it doesn't.
December 11, 2025 at 11:10 AM
goodlawproject.org
Thrilled with this one-off I commissioned featuring a quote from @reproutopia.bsky.social and painted by Lev Bratishenko, alias Misanthropocene on Insta.
Image of a t-shirt featuring a painted image of a t-shirt bearing the legend "THE BORDER GUARDS OF SEX ARE THE ENEMIES OF HUMAN LIBERATION."
December 10, 2025 at 10:58 AM
goodlawproject.org
An important point to come out of the Sandie Peggie case is that 'gender critical' employees can't take matters into their own hands and confront trans employees. If they do that it is likely to be harassment/ bullying/ a hate incident.
So far as her other comments are concerned, they were impermissible manifestations of her belief and were in our view what amounted to an incident of harassment by the claimant of the second respondent related to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, reasonably perceived by the second respondent to be so, and were a breach by the claimant of section 26 of the Act and of the Bullying and Harassment Policy. The second respondent was entitled to view the actions of the claimant in those particular regards as being such harassment, or as a “hate incident” within the policy, and the first respondent was entitled in principle to act on the complaint made, but the detail of how it did so depends on all the circumstances as more fully addressed below. The second respondent was also entitled to regard the claimant’s actions as a breach of the second respondent’s Article 8 rights, so far as the claimant’s expression of her beliefs was impermissible. 1034. We also considered that the claimant had acted deliberately to be able to challenge the second respondent whilst they were alone. What she did was to wait until other members of staff had left the changing room, and for the second respondent to leave the cubicle, before raising her own beliefs directly with the second respondent in the manner we have set out. 1035. Whilst the claimant had not been informed as promptly and in the detail we considered appropriate, and the first respondent did not consider whether to revoke permission at all, the claimant did not herself raise any formal grievance under the policy. She is an experienced member of staff who had access to union advice. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the first respondent having granted permission to the second respondent she required to have raised her concerns with the first respondent as the decision-maker rather than with the colleague to whom it had been granted, and in any event ought not to have done so in the manner that she did.
December 9, 2025 at 9:20 AM
goodlawproject.org
She won her case like you won the general election.
December 8, 2025 at 5:36 PM
goodlawproject.org
Also worth noting, the Tribunal found that Sandie Peggie had harassed Dr Beth Upton in a "hate incident".
December 8, 2025 at 5:08 PM
goodlawproject.org
Well, the Tribunal does float that possibility.
December 8, 2025 at 2:49 PM
goodlawproject.org
I can't help but remember that "it" is also the word used by the man who murdered poor Brianna Ghey in a transphobic attack.

These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
632. A wider aspect of evidence we considered concerned an attack on her position in cross examination to the effect that she was generally transphobic, which she denied both when giving evidence initially and on recall (which is addressed further below). Some of the messages she sent are indicative of views which could be described as trans-phobic. In one dated 10 January 2024 the claimant described the second respondent as “it”. In an earlier part of the same message there is reference to the second respondent having a shadow (being in our view a reference to the appearance of stubble on the face) and a “pathetic voice”. These are disparaging remarks in relation to the second respondent in our view, because of the second respondent being a trans woman. 633. In another the second respondent is described as a “weirdo”, which the claimant sought to explain as someone acting weirdly, but which we did not accept as being what she had intended by use of that word. These remarks we consider to be consistent with other evidence of her making comments the second respondent was liable to find offensive that went beyond the simple expression of a gender critical belief, but amounted to personal attacks on the second respondent.
December 8, 2025 at 2:46 PM