Gender-critical campaigners launch judicial review proceedings over council chamber ban

The city council barred Dr Phoebe Beedell and Wendy Stephenson, who are members of Women of Wessex (WoW), after they raised questions about the local authority's trans inclusion policy at a council meeting in November.

In a public statement during the meeting, Stephenson criticised the council's policy, claiming it "erases" women. Two other WoW members spoke at the meeting, including Dr Beedell.

Alongside the six-month ban, Stephenson also saw her role on the council's independent remuneration panel terminated.

According to Beedell and Stephenson's legal team, the council claims that the pair's behaviour in asking questions of the council and of individual council members after the meeting was intimidating, offensive and not respectful of others.

A spokesperson for the legal team at Conrathe Gardner claimed only Dr Beedell was involved in a conversation with councillors after the meeting, "and her behaviour was in no sense intimidatory".  

The firm added: "This is an important case in the balancing of trans rights and gender critical views and has implications for the way in which councils treat democratic debate with members of the public, and the need for councils to bring their policies into line with the Equality Act and the For Women Scotland decision."

The claimants sent a pre-action protocol letter to the council early last month (4 December).

It advanced grounds that, among other things, argued the council had undermined the principles of natural justice as it failed to provide Dr Beedell with an opportunity to make representations and failed to provide sufficient details.

A second ground argued that the decision breached the claimants' Article 10 and 11 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and is inconsistent with the council's constitution.

It contended that the claimants' Articles 10 and 11 rights were violated because the ban interferes with their ability to express their views directly to democratically elected members on a matter of significant public interest.

According to the claim, such interference was unlawful because it was contrary to natural law and "the only apparent aim of imposing the bans is the suppression of gender critical views, which is not a legitimate aim, particularly since these views are largely in line with the recent Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland".

In addition, the group argued that the council's decision to terminate Stephenson's position on the council's independent remuneration committee was procedurally unfair as she had no opportunity to make representations.

The full claim has now been issued after Bristol "made clear its intention to resist the challenge", the firm said.

The claimants are seeking a quashing order for the ban, as well as an order to quash the decision to remove Ms Stephenson from the remuneration panel.

Commenting on the litigation, Dr Beedell said she had felt "silenced and humiliated" by the council ban.

She added: "I have felt disappointed and angry that the council didn't ask me for my account of the conversation with the two councillors after the 4 November meeting nor did the council afford me basic natural justice by notifying me of the proposed ban and letting me speak in my defence."

Ms Stephenson meanwhile said: "I asked a question about the legality of the council's 'trans-inclusion' policy after the For Women Scotland decision. Now they will be using Bristol taxpayers' money to defend their outrageous response."

Bristol City Council has been approached for comment.

Adam Carey