Reposted by Zoell 🏳️⚧️
the plainness with which this is put covers up a sort of powerless rage that you feel as a parent of a trans kid. it’s, to say the least, an alienating experience to see people bicker over the niceties of this or that pension policy when the party and the government has done this to your family
![Attach this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1psgpYr3XD-lgAq_uxdOjnGTezcnFIeDS/view?usp=sharing
The Email:
Dear [Enter relevant honorific or salutation],
Please find attached a letter regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the implications this may have for public authorities considering implementation of the EHRC Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
We would be grateful if this correspondence could be forwarded to the relevant legal, governance, equality, and policy teams for consideration.
For further information, please respond to info@tacc.org.uk
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Please add the name of the public body you have emailed to this form once sent, so we can keep a log: https://forms.gle/G5mgb2R45JQBWMCZ7](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreidktlwugocw5ipymgzib3yns7orvmrap3seps53b6ohogoeatb2se)
![Dear Colleague,
We write to draw your attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in RR v Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions [2019] UKSC 52, which has significant implications for all public authorities considering implementation of
the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
In RR, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that public authorities, courts and tribunals are not merely
permitted but are required to disapply subordinate legislation where its application would result in a breach of
Convention rights. Lady Hale stated:
"There is nothing unconstitutional about a public authority, court or tribunal disapplying a provision of
subordinate legislation which would otherwise result in their acting incompatibly with a Convention
right, where this is necessary in order to comply with the HRA."
This reaffirmed the central principle of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
This principle remains relevant when considering the EHRC Draft Code of Practice.
The Equality Act 2010 is primary legislation, and public authorities must comply with it as interpreted by the courts.
However, the Draft Code itself is guidance. While it is intended to assist service providers and public authorities in
understanding the law, it does not override obligations arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, nor does it remove
the need for public authorities to undertake their own equality and human rights assessments[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreibx4gdjd33inmgxods7udsitvqtcgroittdpndk45437tfs55lsp4)
![[...]Many of the harms identified within the Equality Impact Assessment engage rights protected by Articles 8 and 14 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. These include rights relating to privacy, dignity, personal autonomy,
personal identity, and protection from discrimination. The Draft Code itself recognises that requests for information
concerning a person's sex engage Article 8 rights and that any interference must pursue a legitimate aim and be
proportionate.
Public authorities should therefore ensure that any policy derived from the Draft Code is supported by a rigorous
assessment of its compatibility with Convention rights, including whether the proposed approach is evidence-based,
proportionate, and the least intrusive means available of achieving a legitimate aim.
We therefore urge all public authorities to undertake a comprehensive assessment under the Human Rights Act and
the Equality Act before adopting policies based on the Draft Code of Practice. Particular attention should be paid to:
Article 8 rights to privacy, dignity, personal identity and bodily autonomy;
Article 14 protections against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights;
The findings of the Government's Equality Impact Assessment and the foreseeable harms identified within it;
The requirement for evidence-based and case-specific proportionality assessments;
The availability of less intrusive measures capable of achieving any legitimate aim;
The potential impact upon trans people, gender non-conforming people, disabled people, and others who
may be disproportionately affected by ‘sex-verification’ or exclusionary practices;
The risk that implementation may leave some individuals without practical access to services.
The Supreme Court's judgment in RR is a reminder that public authorities must independently consider their
obligations under the Human Rights Act when exercising any discretion available to them[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreiffbdqwocld5py5ry6rtv3cimjy4hivyv6kjtjd2l3wfg656r2xya)
