Darlington nurses give evidence in court

On 20 January 2025, the Darlington nurses gave evidence in court that they were ‘intimidated’ by a male colleague identifying as woman called ‘Rose’, after launching legal action against an NHS Trust that forced them to undress in front of him.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, the eight nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital launched legal action against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust after they were told they needed to be ‘re-educated’ and ‘more inclusive’ after raising concerns to HR about having to change in front of a man.

Alarm from dozens of nurses, at least one of whom had experienced sexual abuse as a child and reported that she was having panic attacks after getting changed and being questioned by ‘Rose’ in the changing room, were ignored.

Instead, HR and The Trust’s bosses dug in on their policy which allowed anyone who merely ‘identified’ as a woman to use the female changing room.

The nurses’ case has had high-profile national and international media attention, with the nurses receiving public backing from J.K Rowling, health secretary Wes Streeting and leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch. 

On 20 January, Newcastle Employment Tribunal considered the application made by the Trust’s legal team for reporting restrictions to prevent Rose’s identity being made public.

‘Rose’ claimed that he needed anonymity because he was afraid of further media attention which would put him ‘at risk’ of being targeted with hostile online comments.

Two of the Darlington nurses who brought the challenge filed witness statements to rebut Rose’s attempts to present himself as a ‘victim’ when he had escalated his intimidation of them at the hospital.

Bethany Hutchison said that since the nurses raised concerns about the Trust’s changing room policy, Rose’s ‘behaviour changed’ and ‘we started to feel quite intimidated.’

After the legal claim was launched and the story appeared in the media, a sign with NHS logos was taped on to the female changing room door which said: ‘INCLUSIVE CHANGING ROOM’.

The nurses were eventually given inadequate ‘temporary’ changing rooms, which are offices, while Rose continued to use the female changing room.

Mrs Hutchison said other nurses reported that Rose’s behaviour was ‘intimidating and completely inappropriate’ with one saying that as they passed Rose in the corridor, he “intentionally eyeballed them and walked towards them aggressively swinging keys.”

Bethany added that Rose unnecessarily asserted himself and creating a presence in the nurse’s unit.

Due to this behaviour, Bethany said she was ‘sceptical’ about his claims of ‘distress and anxiety’ and questioned that if this was so, then why was he continuing to use the female changing rooms and unnecessarily appear on their unit?

Another Darlington nurse giving evidence said that Rose has failed: “to consider the risk we and other women face every time he or another male is in our changing room. The Trust’s policy puts us at risk. It is very important the public are aware of this.”

Rose also claimed that he is ‘a private person’, but the nurses in response submitted evidence that revealed him campaigning for Stonewall on Facebook, being a member of a ‘Transgender s***tposting’ group, and images of him appearing as a male and getting engaged to his girlfriend.

After initially indicating she would give an order on 20 January, Employment Judge Sharon Langridge said she would reserve judgment on whether to grant Rose further anonymity.

The hearing opened with the Trust’s lawyers asking the Tribunal to use feminine pronouns to refer to ‘Rose’. The nurses’ barrister, Bruno Quintavalle, insisted that Rose was legally a male and he was instructed by the nurses to refer to him by masculine pronouns which reflected their case and the law of the land.

Throughout the hearing, Mr Quintavalle referred to Rose as “he” while Employment Judge Langridge tried to compromise by saying ‘they.’

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said:

“When we pause to consider this case we will ask ourselves whether the system has gone mad. This case is about truth. It’s about hard reality. It’s about whether a man can be a woman just because he says so.

“It’s insane to say that a man can enter a female nurses’ changing room in a hospital because he says he is a man. It’s insane that we are having court hearings about whether to protect him rather than the nurses.

“It is the female nurses who have been intimidated and put at risk by the Trust’s policy, not the man who says he is a woman who wants to get undressed in the female changing room.

“This case is about what reality is, about what a woman is and what it means to be human. If we suppress access to open justice and media comment on this case, we suppress the truth.

“This is an extraordinarily high-profile case that has had huge public interest. Its full details must be wholly available for the media to scrutinise and report.

“Nobody wants to invade anybody’s privacy, but there is no reason not to trust these nurses, the media and the public to discuss this important case responsibly, as they have done for some months now. This important public debate should not be gagged by court injunctions and threats of imprisonment for contempt.”