Maugham: Over 1,000 complaints to BSB – none upheld
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has rejected a complaint against high-profile KC Jolyon Maugham over his outspoken criticism of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the For Women Scotland case.
In its landmark ruling hailed by gender-critical campaigners, the court held that the Equality Act 2010 definition of sex refers to biology.
Mr Maugham has written about how the decision “has made me ashamed of my profession and ashamed of what our law has become”.
Blogger Richard Dunstan posted the BSB’s reply to his complaint about Mr Maugham, director of the Good Law Project (GLP), on X.
The BSB said he alleged that Mr Maugham had, in social media and the press, “repeatedly denigrated” the Supreme Court decision and “sought to delegitimise” its authority.
Mr Dunstan also complained about text on the GLP crowdfunding website, which stated that the Supreme Court “disgracefully refused to hear from trans people before handing down a decision with the profoundest possible consequences for trans lives”.
The GLP is campaigning to “stop the UK’s attack on trans people” after the Supreme Court “ripped up the Equality Act without hearing a single trans voice”.
In the immediate wake of the decision, Mr Maugham accused the Supreme Court of “exclude[ing] all trans voices” from the hearing, while saying it “allowed fresh evidence from organisations opposed to the rights and dignities of trans people, did not allow that evidence to be tested, and swallowed it whole”.
He went on: “These are both remarkable failings – these are very basic principles of fairness – and it is really hard to come up with a ‘good’ explanation of how the Supreme Court made them.”
The BSB said that although “many people” would find Mr Maugham’s views “offensive”, it did not consider that the Supreme Court, “given the large amount of media interest and debate on both sides of the argument”, would consider it to be a “gravely damaging attack”.
The BSB said it had assessed whether Mr Maugham was protected by the freedom of expression provisions in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
This was “a qualified right which can be restricted for, among other matters, criticism of the judiciary”, noting that comments on a matter of public interest attract a “higher level” of protection.
“We did not identify evidence that Mr Maugham made the posts in the knowledge that they were misleading or false.
“It is clear that Mr Maugham felt strongly that the handling and outcome of the case was unfair and voiced his opinion clearly.”
The GLP’s crowdfunding page says it has raised over £446,300 towards a target of £500,000 to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility, on the grounds that the Supreme Court ruling is incompatible with its obligations under the Human Rights Act and ECHR.
Mr Dunstan complained that the text did not “provide potential donors with the material information they need to make an informed decision about whether to donate”.
He was also “concerned that the content of the posts would diminish the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and also the public respect for the authority of the Supreme Court and the rule of law”.
The BSB said its social media guidance stated that comments about the judiciary which “involve gratuitous attacks or serious criticism that is misleading may breach our rules”.
Having taken the guidance into account, the regulator could not identify a breach of its handbook by Mr Maugham which was “apt for further consideration”.
With regard to the crowdfunding page, the BSB said it did not regulate the GLP, but noted that Mr Dunstan had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. Should any findings be made against Mr Maugham, the BSB could consider them.
The BSB said there had been “no serious potential breach” of the rules by Mr Maugham which justified an investigation.
Mr Maugham wrote on BlueSky recently that, “doing the work I do and in the way I do it, I’ve been subject to something in the region of a thousand complaints to my regulator. None have been upheld”.
