Legal battle over veto of 'doomed' Scottish gender reform bill would be ... trends now

A legal battle over the UK government's veto of Nicola Sturgeon's 'doomed' gender reform bill would be a costly 'mistake', legal experts have warned.

The Scottish first minister is gearing up to fight the imposition of a section 35 order which has blocked the SNP's overhaul of gender recognition laws.

The decision to block the law has been harshly criticised by Ms Sturgeon, but one former supreme court judge has said the chances of it being overturned are incredibly low.

Lord Hope of Craighead said the case put forward by the UK government is 'devastating' and questioned whether fighting it would be a 'sensible use of public money'. 

He was backed by ex-honorary professor of law at Glasgow University, Alistair Bonnington, who claimed any bid by the SNP to fight the order in court would be 'doomed'.

It comes as Rishi Sunak yesterday defended the decision to block the reforms and denied SNP claims the move was an attack on devolution.

In a fierce rebuke of the First Minister's plan for a judicial review, Lord Hope insisted it was difficult to see how any court would not agree that Scottish Secretary Alister Jack was acting reasonably when he imposed the order, and said the prospect of a successful challenge is 'very low'.

Ms Sturgeon faced growing calls last night to stop raiding the public coffers every time a flawed SNP policy was challenged. 

Scottish Tory constitution spokesman Donald Cameron said: 'Lord Hope's comments help explain why the UK Government had no alternative but to issue a section 35 order.

'His warning to [Miss Sturgeon] on pursuing this through the courts should be heeded – it would amount to a waste of public money.'

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would lower the age for applications for a gender recognition certificate to 16 and remove the need for a medical diagnosis of dysphoria. 

The UK Government has warned allowing it to gain Royal Assent would have an 'adverse' impact on UK-wide equality laws.

Lord Hope said: 'There are two points... the first is does the Bill make modifications to the 2004 (Gender Recognition) Act that exists in law as it is, and the answer to that question is that it most certainly does, because that is part of the purpose – indeed the whole purpose – of the Bill itself, to make the acquisition of a certificate that much easier, and also about modifications.

'Then the question is, was the Secretary of State acting reasonably deciding to make the order? When you look at the reasons in the document it is very difficult to see how a court could come to a conclusion to the contrary effect.

'And that makes me think that actually to go to court and argue it through the various levels of court is a mistake, it seems to me, risking a lot of time – because it will take a lot of time going through all the levels of court until you get to the Supreme Court – and also questions as to whether it is a sensible use of public money.'

If the SNP Government seeks a judicial review, it would be heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh. But the case could then end up in the Supreme Court if the losing side appealed the decision.

Lord Hope, a former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates who retired as a Supreme Court judge a decade ago, told BBC Scotland the UK Government's 13-page 'statement of reasons', setting out why it imposed a section 35 order, is 'a very devastating document for those who seek to preserve the Bill'.

Asked whether Miss Sturgeon was wrong to say she will vigorously defend the legislation, he said: 'She can decide to do that but I still think it is open to question whether it is a wise decision, given the prospects of success – which I would have thought are very low, given the detail of the document that has been published. 

'I hope she'll take a deep breath and that she will calm down and try to look at the thing rationally.'