Sandie Peggie judge accused of packing verdict with dodgy quotes

_{Did Kemp struggle with an AI helper?}

An employment judge has been accused of peppering a ruling with inaccurate and nonexistent quotes from other judgments.

Scottish Employment Judge Sandy Kemp handed down his keenly-awaited judgment this week which determined that Sandie Peggie, a nurse who objected to changing in the same room as a transwoman doctor, had been harassed by NHS Fife, but dismissed her other allegations of discrimination and victimisation.

Barrister Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project welcomed the verdict for finding "that there is no trans bathroom ban", and described it as “a real disaster for those - pretty much the entirety of the British media - advancing a maximalist reading of the For (Some) Women Scotland decision.”

Interested parties combing through Kemp’s mammoth 312-page verdict noticed something unusual: several of Kemp's quotes from other judgments either didn’t exist or appeared in a heavily altered form.

At paragraph 791 of his ruling, Kemp stated that “In Forstater v CDG Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20 the Employment Appeal Tribunal had emphasised that: 'It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics'".

Yet that line does not appear anywhere in Forstater. Lawyer Dennis Noel Kavanagh said the judge’s hallucination was “most unusual”, while the claimant in the case, Maya Forstater, pointed out, “This 'quote' from my judgment doesn’t come from my judgment. It is completely made up. 🤯”

On Thursday the tribunal made the unusual decision to issue a certificate of correction, replacing the erroneous paragraph with a version which it said "provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics". It excused the phantom quote as a “clerical error”.

The tribunal may need to issue a few more certificates to sort out what one equalities lawyer described as a "dog's dinner".

Two paragraphs later Kemp included a long quote from Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 49 which doesn't appear anywhere in that judgment.

Elsewhere, Kemp misquoted the Supreme Court's key For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling in his consideration of its implications for transwomen seeking to occupy female-only facilities.

His version deletes the word ‘trans’ and omits the qualifying context which gave the original passage a different meaning.

Kemp:

The decision states that "such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users….."

For Women Scotland (emphasis ROF's):

Although such trans women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of the other women users, the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman without a GRC is legally entitled to do so.

Scottish advocate Jonathan Brown said, “This seems like the sort of thing that you probably shouldn’t do in a very high profile judgment that you would expect to be subject to intensive scrutiny and which was quite likely to be appealed”.

There is more judicial sleight of hand at work in paragraph 579, where Kemp cited R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKSC 72.

Although he states that the quote was what "Lady Hale, as she had become, said in the first paragraph of her speech", in fact it is the 29th paragraph of her speech, grafted on top of a section of her first paragraph.

In another apparent example of Kemp's creative quoting, at paragraph 454 the judge includes an excerpt from Games v University of Kent UKEAT/0524/13 which hasn't been found in that judgment, and seems instead to be a more concise formulation of the point at issue.

Kemp:

In Games v University of Kent UKEAT/0524/13 it was held that statistical information was not necessary: if it existed it would be "important material” but that “the evidence of the claimant and others in his group might suffice and could provide compelling evidence of disadvantage even if there are no statistics at all."

Games:

But the Claimant’s own evidence, or evidence of others in the group, or both, might suffice. This is, we think, as it should be: the experience of those who belong to groups sharing protected characteristics is important material for a court or tribunal to consider. They may be able to provide compelling evidence of disadvantage even if there are no statistics at all.

Presenting a summary as if it was a quote from a judgment appears to be a recurring issue. At paragraph 473, Kemp cites an ECHR judgment, Eweida, Ladele, McFarlane and Chaplin v The United Kingdom [2013] IRLR 231, but his excerpt does not seem to feature in that ruling. It appears instead to have been gleaned from a summary of the case, possibly contained in the Industrial Relations Law Reports referenced by Kemp. (ROF hasn't checked as our IRLR subscription has lapsed.)

At paragraph 547, Kemp cites the ECHR ruling in Evans v United Kingdom Application no. 6339/05, but without identifying that he is quoting a lower tier’s decision and not the final judgment which was handed down a year later by the Grand Chamber.

Kemp's sloppiness extends to misdefining a key term which has the unfortunate effect of classifying both transwomen and transmen as biological males: "The Tribunal will use the terms 'trans woman' being a person assigned male by sex at birth... and 'trans man' being a person assigned as male by sex at birth", his judgment states.

In the gift that keeps on giving, another section sees clumsy Kemp refer to the gender critical group 'Not All Gays' as 'Not for Gays'.

The mistakes have prompted some to wonder if the judge outsourced parts of his lengthy opus to ChatGPT, while Peggie has said she will appeal the ruling.

A spokesperson for the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary told ROF it does not comment on judgments.

Update: Another error has been spotted. At para 431, Kemp cites Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller [2023] EAT 5, where the claimant was a woman. The original judgment stated at paragraph 28, "the claimant was not provided with toilet facilities that were adequate to her needs", but Kemp's quote gives her a topical sex change, altering the line to: "the man was not provided with toilet facilities that were adequate to her needs".

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

Another fine and balanced piece of news from Jamie Hamilton featuring comment only from wholly impartial observers.

It would have been interesting to know the views of sources that are not leading anti-trans activists as to whether any material difference is made to the judgement or whether these are anything more than de minimis errors.

Does it make any difference to the finding that Peggie harrassed Dr Upton for example? Or that her evidence was less reliable? Or the fact that she is amongst other things a racist? Is there any reason the author felt the need not to include these facts & findings? Otherwise this reads less as news and more as a polemic.

Mmm…has anyone checked whether Employment Law Judge Sandy Kemp is actually a Bot?!
Looks like a spectacular and high profile fail for AI: just the latest in a laughable and quite absurdly fatuous series in the Litigation Wild West seemingly?
With no doubt far, far more of exactly similar to come.

Much guffawing at the various trans advocates posing as legal commentators who spent the early part of this week trumpeting this judgement as a fine piece of work that really understood and engaged with the issues (i.e. one that didn't give their crank ideas another thorough shoeing). A real showcase of their attention to detail and knowledge of the law.

Great punchline that it's all ChatGPT garbo from a soon to be disciplined judge who clearly didn't engage with, or really understand, the core issues and who has just set their conclusions up for a thorough spanking on appeal.

Just remember, you mustn't call anyone an 'Activist Lawyer'. There's no such thing and it's an attack on the rule of law to suggest there is. You have to pretend that these nutters are respectable professionals.

"It would have been interesting to know the views of sources that are not leading anti-trans activists as to whether any material difference is made to the judgement"

Yes, it's vital that we bring in some dubiously qualified campaigners who desperately want the judgement to be a good one. They'll certainly have something useful to tell us.

Just because a judgement looks like it was written by someone with such poor attention to the content of the cases they were supposed to be considering that they didn't even notice when ChatGPT spewed out quotes from them that didn't exist, well that doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are unsound!

We can't possibly rely on eminent lawyers for this one, let's get some obscure trans activists in whose sole purpose in life is to try to tell us that the law says whatever it needs to in order for them to get what they want.

@9.13 WTF are you on about?! She isn’t a racist and she wasn’t found to have harassed Dr “Beth” Upton. Did you just ask ChatGPT to summarise the judgment for you and regurgitated whatever shite it gave you?

Calling it now - this is an AI work of creative fiction that gets successfully appealed. The age of the trans grift is ending, sorry Jolyon.

Still guffawing 09:19. This is desparate stuff. One day you will be dead but trans people will still be here and all that you will have done is harm innocent people and undermined the human rights of everyone else including those you delude yourself into believing you are defending.

Big lols at the Scottish legal profession reminding us that it is at least the equal of it's English cousin and very worthy of our admiration. We're not to patronise them as a daft backwater.

Just remember, some of the smartest lawyers they know practice in Edinburgh!

Can we refer the judge for disciplinary action? Happens to lawyers using AI incorrectly.

Ignoring racist abuse leaves targets feeling isolated and abused. Hate loves silence, which it takes for consent.

Dublin Lawyer

Lot of zeds in there...Is srutinised really spelt with a "z" in the AW v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2017] CSIH 58?...

Minimized

Recognizing

Scrutinized

Summarized

Marginalization and victimization

@09:31 "One day you will be dead but trans people will still be here"

Yeah, that line sums up exactly the state of affairs of the trans rights activists. It's not about equality but superiority.

@Anonymous 12 December 25 08:33, I would expect any impartial observers to be dismayed by the fact that a judge charged with the responsibility for making such an important decision could misrepresent the law in this way (even if only by negligence). I’ve been dismayed when I’ve had this kind of ineptitude from trainees whose rubbish will never make it beyond my inbox, never mind someone whose work actually affects the law.

PS If you have any relevant comments from impartial observers (and I doubt the voices coming through your social media algorithms will be impartial) saying why this isn’t a problem, please do present them.

Just a statement of fact 10:04. Trans people existed for thousands of years before anyone of us were here and they will for thousands of years afterwards for as long a human being are around. It speaks volumes for your character that you seem to think this is an issue of superiority and not a problem with the foundations of your ideology.

"One day you will be dead but trans people will still be here"

I have no doubt that there will still been in dresses roaming the Earth after I am dead.

Happily, I'm confident that the idea that those men are actually women who should be allowed to swim against women in the Olympics and/or go have a rummage around the ladies changing rooms at will, will be long gone before then.

Like phrenology it will be considered a quack idea from a bygone foolish age.

Great detective work!

But I see your survey below the article asks:

"Your gender

Female

Male

Prefer not to say"

Do you mean sex? :-)

@10:04 - I think it sums them up more by illustrating that they're all melodramatic weirdos with delusions of historical significance.

Perhaps 10:05 perhaps not but the selection of a handful of extremist activists for source material a and failure to mention salient facts is not indicative of a piece written with balance, honesty or an intent to inform in mind. Building an argument on such shaky foundations as you seem to do is unlikely to lead to accurate conclusions.

@Anonymous 12 December 25 10:19, who are these "extremist activists"? There's Maya Forstater making a simple, independently verifiable statement about a quote from a public judgment, and two lawyers expressing surprise in quite restrained terms. Contrast that with Maugham's triumphalist proclamation at the top of the article.

As for "source material", are you saying that these errors don't exist in the judgment? And has Maugham said anything since they emerged?

@10:36 - come on, you know the rules of the game by now.

Anyone who doesn't think that men can transform themselves into women holds 'extreme views' and is actively 'anti trans'.

Challenge anyone on what it is that is extreme about those views and you get some vague mumbling about fascism, the Russians, and propaganda. As if the only reason that someone might not think a man with a cock and balls was not a woman was because Vladimir Putin had radicalised them on Twitter.

Obvs don't suggest their views on this kind of transmogrification are 'extreme' or 'anti-women' though. That is hate speech which causes literal harm.

The full definition of "trans man" in the judgment is:

"trans man" being a person assigned as male by sex at birth who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the context of transition to male

So someone born male who has transitioned from being a man to being a man.

Poor appellate court. They won't want to send it back for a full re-hearing but they have no alternative but to find that the judge's continual mis-statement of the law gives no confidence that the judge has considered ANY law, let alone the right law.

And unpicking the mistakes to apply the correct law to the findings of fact may be impossible - given the complete, total, and utter bodge the Tribunal made of it, it has to call into question the assessment of evidence, as the judicial mis-quotes are all in favour of the Trust, and are prima facie evidence of bias. So no trust in the assessment of that evidence.

"the judicial mis-quotes are all in favour of the Trust, and are prima facie evidence of bias"

I'm as shocked as you are.

This stuff really got it's hooks into the chattering classes of Scotland. Rooting it out is going to take several years longer than in the rest of the UK.

A fascinating PhD is there for the taking though. Why was Scotland such a fertile breeding ground for this kind of nonsense? A small intellectual elite particularly prone to groupthink? Fervent anti-English sentiment causing the easy adoption of bad ideas largely out of spite? Latent misogyny flowing from the SNP? Some other deep rooted cultural malaise?

Who knows? Sociologists will tell us eventually, but for some reason the Scottish middle classes really fell for this breed of silliness hard.

I have to admit, the error described in the update to the story, where kemp changes the sex of the claimant, is at least appropriate given the subject matter of the case.

Was his brain fried by the concepts involved?

Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project... The only man delusional enough to make even the trans lobby step back and ask if they really need 'every' ally they can get.

@11:30 - a little introspection required from anyone who regarded him as a crusading hero during his first grift phase selling them Brexit related snake oil.

He used to get a much more favourable reception from RoF's cognoscenti back in the day.

So if you were formerly an enthusiastic donor to his fund for doomed legal challenges against the conservative government then possibly worth a few moments reflection as to why you were so easily deceived. He was a crank selling bullshit then too.

The many errors, misquotes and fabrications are not random. They only go one way and that is to undermine the FWS ruling. The evidence suggests not just that the judge is incompetent but that he is biased.

Much as a binding judgment by the EAT would be welcome, and the prospect of putting witnesses through it all again is dismaying, public confidence is at risk and the case should be sent back down for redetermination by a fresh panel.

Para 653 refers to the "disappearing patient" episode occurring on 31 October, but Sandie Peggie's evidence was that it was the "resus incident" which happened on that date. She said that a Halloween trick or treater had an allergic reaction to a Snickers bar that they had been given. Upton couldn't narrow the date down, but denied the resus incident was the Snickers bar one. EJ Kemp seems to have decided on the date, but muddled the incidents.

"Ignoring racist abuse leaves targets feeling isolated and abused. Hate loves silence, which it takes for consent."

Why has this got 20 thumbs downs (as of 12.20 today)? Is racism now acceptable in "gender critical" circles too?

Regardless of where you stand on the underlying issue, this judgment should be a matter of the greatest concern. This judge made stuff up and then passed it of as justice. That's appalling and I struggle to see how it could be described as an honest mistake. Altering the text of a previous judgment and putting it in quotation marks is a deliberate act intended to deceive the reader.

To put this in context, when it was found that the Panorama programme had spliced together different parts of Donald Trump's speech, it led to the resignation of the BBC's director general. This is every bit as serious, and it is a conduct matter as well as grounds for an appeal.

Is this the case where one party couldn’t give evidence unless their support dog accompanied them?

As the Good Book says: “Oh dear. What a mess.”

(Attributions 15:8)

EJ Kemp is in his late 60s. I confidently predict there will be no enquiry into his conduct and how he produced this absolute shitshow of a judgment. He will quietly 'retire' to spend more time with his family. And his pension.

It’s almost as if the Tribunal decided on the result and then asked AI to come up with some case law that fitted.

I'm genuinely curious as to why someone down voted that 20 times when they would usually parrot the person* who said it without a second thought.

How to say you've been radicalised by "gender critical" bigotry into other nazi sympathising positions without saying you've been radicalised by "gender critical" bigoty into other nazi sympathising positions perhaps? Assuming you weren't always a hypocrite & a fascist with nazi sympathies in the first place ofc.

*It's Rowling FAOD. Who almost certainly had & maintains some role in funding this circus despite the overt racism of the stalking horse Peggie (Who, if reports are correct, by her own admission hadn't even heard of the notion of "gender critical beliefs" before her case was picked up by the fash. Not even an ideologue, just an old fashioned generically vile bully).

Okay, this now amounts to incompetence, if not negligence. As another observes, all the errors "only go one way, and that is to undermine the FWS finding". This is as disturbing as the inaccuracies. Clear bias and quite literally rewriting the law. I cannot understand how Judge Kemp thought he would get away with this, other than extraordinary complacency (esp given how high profile this case is) or genuine incompetence in not understanding how AI works.

Okay, this now amounts to incompetence, if not negligence. Clearly it is not lost on the readers that all the errors, as one of them writes, "only go one way, and that is to undermining the FWS finding". This is as disturbing as the inaccuracies. Clear bias and quite literally rewriting the law. I cannot understand how Judge Kemp thought he would get away with this, other than extraordinary complacency or genuine incompetence and not understanding how AI works.

"A fascinating PhD is there for the taking though. Why was Scotland such a fertile breeding ground for this kind of nonsense? A small intellectual elite particularly prone to groupthink? Fervent anti-English sentiment causing the easy adoption of bad ideas largely out of spite? Latent misogyny flowing from the SNP? Some other deep rooted cultural malaise?"

I would like to read that PhD too. think the SNP saw self-ID as a progressive cause that would secure them the youth vote and define them against the Westminster dinosaurs. The SNP & Scottish Greens often seem to stake their success on their enemies ageing out and dying off, with no need to win hearts and minds by argument.

Self ID was adopted as if it were already law, with organisations dependent on government funding incorporating it into their charters and rewarded with Stonewall Diversity Champion badges.

It is dismaying to see grassroots Scottish organisations set up by and for women using phrases like "this event is only open to women - inclusive of Trans and Intersex women, as well as non-binary and gender fluid people who are comfortable in a space that centres the experiences of women."

..which is a long and awkward way of saying, "anyone and everyone".

Thankfully Scotland has also been the site of biggest pushback, most notably small but mighty "For Women Scotland".

@11.43. You obviously have similar nasal condition to mine. When Jolyon Maugham's name comes up, I find a smell of fox wee comes to the nostrils unbidden.

"Much guffawing at the various trans advocates posing as legal commentators who spent the early part of this week trumpeting this judgement as a fine piece of work that really understood and engaged with the issues (i.e. one that didn't give their crank ideas another thorough shoeing). A real showcase of their attention to detail and knowledge of the law."

Transgender reddit has been anything but, several lawyers on there and have been very cautious on it. The verdict was proclaimed as a "Victory" by the BBC, then the next day they run another puff-piece on the bigot Peggie saying "she'll fight the ruling". Brazen stuff

The Good Laugh Project are just funding Maughams lifestyle at this point. He is so wrong on so many issues its astounding. Men ARE banned from womens single sex spaces. This judgment is equally as wrong.

JFC
"Thankfully Scotland has also been the site of biggest pushback, most notably small but mighty "For Women Scotland"."

The astro-turf group backed by billionaires?
Yes mate, it about time the courageous British press pushed back on trans issues, they never mention it do they.

This is very confusing to the casual observer, so I wrote an explanatory article about it here: https://controlc.com/e90d1307. Please feel free to share it with friends and family who are unfamiliar with the horrors of the trans cult. Apologies for the lack of pretty formatting: I’m unfamiliar with Wordpress et al, and don’t really have time to bother learning it.

Transgender Ideology: An Analysis and Call for Prosecutions

https://controlc.com/e90d1307

Abstract:

“This article examines transgender ideology as a biologically unfounded construct that challenges the immutability of sex, defined as binary and determined by chromosomal and reproductive biology. It argues that medical interventions, such as hormone treatments and surgeries, provide only cosmetic alterations, incapable of changing fundamental sex characteristics. Drawing on historical figures like Dr Georges Burou and detransitioner accounts, such as Alan Finch's description of surgery as "genital mutilation," the piece contends that such procedures stem from delusions or paraphilias, notably autogynephilia—a sexual fetish involving arousal from imagining oneself as female.

The analysis rejects the distinction between sex and gender, viewing the latter as an incoherent sociopolitical invention critiqued in works by Helen Joyce, Abigail Shrier, and Kathleen Stock. It identifies drivers of the ideology, including adult male fetishes (e.g., autogynephilia in figures like Andrea Chu), online grooming leading to rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents, profit-driven medical industries, male athletes exploiting women's sports, sex offenders accessing female spaces, and political opportunism by Democrats and Labour supporters seeking moral validation.

Societal harms are emphasised, encompassing the grooming, chemical sterilisation, and surgical mutilation of children, with reference to the Cass Review's findings on weak evidence for benefits and reports of 5,700 minors operated on in the U.S. between 2019 and 2023. Additional impacts include the erosion of women's sports through over 578 male victories, and safety risks in single-sex facilities, exemplified by assaults by individuals like Karen White and Darren Merager. Critiques of "gender-affirming care" incorporate analyses of U.S. v. Skrmetti Supreme Court arguments, debunking claims of reversibility and mental health benefits, and Corinna Cohn's Substack essay exposing false moderation in advocacy.”

Anon 15:59 - I hope the words “magical thinking” appear in there somewhere. I can’t stomach reading too much about this mass hysteria outbreak, important though it is to deal with it, but I’m pretty sure you will not be getting a Christmas card from our resident TRA wizard cheese/chill

In light of other cases in USA where GAI has been used by lawyers, I wonder if this is a UK example of an LLM proving a 'false friend' to Judge Sandy Kemp. Many lawyers have cited fake cases generated by, for instance, ChatGPT in legal briefs, leading to sanctions and court hearings, most famously in the Mata v. Avianca case where attorney Steven Schwartz submitted non-existent case law from his choice of AI, highlighting risks and prompting calls for AI literacy, verification protocols, and clearer regulations in the legal field. These incidents show that while AI tools offer potential benefits for legal work, lawyers must rigorously verify all AI-generated content, as the technology can "hallucinate" or invent false information, like fabricated cases and quotes. It's much tricky to check if a text has been LLM generated, though running it through a GAI will offer a 'probability' with a % estimate of how far it is a product of AI.

"The astro-turf group backed by billionaires?"

The clue's in the name. For Women Scotland was formed in 2018 by four ordinary women: Trina Budge, Marion Calder, Susan Smith and Magdalen Berns. Not a billionaire, lawyer or company director between them.

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,the-women-who-wouldnt-wheesht

The Supreme Court appeal was part-funded by Rowling (£70k), but the majority (£127k) was crowdfunded from thousands of small, individual donations.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-scottish-government-redefining-woman/

They are a grassroots group with grassroots support from the outset, with one high-profile supporter in JKR.

Ahhh…so this is what Lammy wants after juries have been done away with? The Prime Minister and Peter (Moron) Kyle, the Business and Trade Secretary are, of course highly in favour of more AI and IT and ChatBot investment so as to save money, develop contacts with tech nerds as donors and consultants and to make thousands of people redundant as a result.
Is this the latest sign of the consequences of what they want?
This is an extremely serious matter and this Employment Law Judge should immediately be suspended by the Lord Chancellor pending a full investigation.
No-one could now have any confidence in his veracity or competence, until a full and comprehensive and urgent report is to hand, to be reviewed by a person independent of Government and who is uberrimae fidei and has the confidence of ALL, without a hidden agenda or biased paymaster.
Justice must be seen to be done.

Bigot = women saying no to men. When will the likes of Jollywrong and the TRAs realise that these words mean nothing. Sorry boys, the ladies are taking it all back.

@00:02 - like I say, you know the rules of the game by now.

Anyone who doesn't campaign for the idea that men can turn into women is invariably compromised and corrupt somehow, because the only possible explanation for someone believing that a man with a cock and balls isn't a woman is because they've been bribed into thinking that by shadowy cabals of billionaires and/or fascist Russians.