Employment Judge Peter McTigue has dismissed the legal claims of Christian teacher, ‘Hannah’, against Nottinghamshire County Council, which runs the school.
The reporting restrictions on publication of anything that might identify the school, Hannah or any other teacher in the school have been extended “to remain in place indefinitely”, to protect the child’s “right” to hide their biological sex “for the remainder of their life”, including in particular from their future “partners” and from even from the child’s own future children.
Backed by the Christian Legal Centre, Hannah will shortly be filing appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal both against the dismissal of her claims and the reporting restrictions, which require her to maintain her own anonymity for the rest of her life and entail a sanction of imprisonment for contempt of court for any breach.
Hannah alleged that the school dismissed her, and reported her to a raft of regulators, for blowing the whistle on uncovering the school’s ‘trans affirming’ policy practice which she believed endangered 8-year-old ‘Child X’ and other children.
Promoted with staff training under the direction of a Stonewall Champion working at the local authority, the policies did not include any detail on the risks a ‘trans affirming’ approach has to children.
Under the policy, Hannah was told ahead of the new school year in 2021, that an 8-year-old joining her class must be addressed by the child’s new name and pronouns and therefore would be treated as ‘transgender’, be ‘affirmed’ in the belief that they were ‘born in a wrong body’ and be allowed to use toilets and changing room facilities of the opposite sex.
Hannah said that she could not go against her conscience and Christian beliefs in affirming what she believed would cause Child X, and other children in the school, short and long-term harm.
Following all the correct safeguarding procedures and backed by expert evidence, Hannah raised safeguarding concerns which were repeatedly ignored by school bosses, governors and the local authority.
Faced with no option but to pursue a judicial review of the school and council’s refusal to properly act on her concerns, Hannah was dismissed for giving her lawyers information on what was happening in the school which the school argued was confidential.
The original hearing of her case collapsed last year after it was discovered a member of the presiding panel had made a string of anti-Christian and anti-conservative posts on X.
Judge Victoria Butler, presiding over the case, was forced to recuse herself and the whole panel for a ‘perception of bias.’
At the start of the re-hearing in March 2025, another member of the panel, an ex-president of Unison, was also required to step down for ‘apparent bias.’
“I was treated like a criminal”
Giving evidence, Hannah said that after carrying out research over the summer holidays, which included interviews with some of the experts she later relied on, and watching YouTube videos of de-transitioners who had regretted their decision, she said she felt she needed to “speak up” about the potential harm the school’s approach could cause Child X.
Raising concerns with the school’s head teacher, Hannah was told her she had no choice but to use Child X’s preferred pronouns because it was the parent’s request and that she had to “go along with it”.
After telling the head teacher she did have a choice and could not “in good conscience go along with it”, Child X was moved to a different class and Hannah was suspended later that month while a disciplinary investigation was carried out for failing to comply with a “reasonable request”.
Hannah said she felt the school had ignored her attempts to navigate the situation by using a gender-neutral name for the child, and had shown a “draconian” response to her safeguarding concerns.
She added that she believed the school was “encouraging Child X on a path to self-destruction”, and that she was “treated like a criminal” for believing so and disclosing her safeguarding concerns to a third party after her concerns were repeatedly brushed aside and ignored.
Stonewall concerns ‘not reasonable’
In his ruling, released this week, however, Employment Judge Peter McTigue, who specialises in the study of HIV and Aids in the context of discrimination related to sexual orientation and disability, ruled against each of Hannah’s claims.
He ruled that despite Child X being guided through ‘social transition’ by extreme gender identity groups, Mermaids and Stonewall, there was no evidence that the 8-year-old was at risk of any harm, and therefore Hannah’s concerns were ‘not reasonable.’
Mermaids have been investigated by the Charity Commission as a safeguarding concern for sending chest binders to girls who want to identify as boys without parental consent.
Stonewall has been widely discredited and abandoned by major institutions after, for example, promoting prescribing puberty blockers to children and ordering schools and institutions to stop using the word ‘mother’.
Hannah provided the school with international expert evidence which said gender identity affirmation leads to ‘catastrophic outcomes’ for children.
However, Employment Judge McTigue said that the expert evidence did not apply to the case of Child X.
Judge McTigue said: “Although [Hannah] subjectively believed that the disclosure was in the public interest, that belief was not objectively reasonable.
‘In short, [Hannah] believed that her opinion was correct and that the approach adopted by the School and by Child X and their parents was incorrect. That was clearly unreasonable as [Hannah] was not in possession of all relevant information regarding Child X at any point in time including, for example, Child X’s medical information.”
This ruling therefore suggests that a teacher cannot raise a safeguarding concern about a ‘socially transitioning’ 8-year-old under the guidance of Stonewall, without having access to the child’s medical records.
Biological sex should be hidden from children, says judge
During the hearing, Judge McTigue repeatedly refused applications to lift tribunal restrictions on the media reporting her identity.
In the last paragraph of his ruling, Employment Judge McTigue said that gender distressed children should have anonymity over their true biological sex ‘for life’ and should even be able to hide their true sex from their own children when they become adults.
He said:
‘We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place indefinitely. In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails over [Hannah’s] Article 6 and 10 rights. If we were to place a restriction on the duration of the restricted reporting order, there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children. Child X has a right to privacy regarding their biological sex for the remainder of their life. Through the process of jigsaw identification, there is a substantial risk that Child X’s identity and biological sex would become known if the Claimant’s name were made public. We therefore conclude that the indefinite time duration is justified given the substantial interference with Child X’s Article 8 rights in this matter.’
‘I have to appeal’
Responding to the ruling, Hannah said: “I am very disappointed with the judgment. It misrepresents the facts. I ask myself if the courts are afraid of hearing any evidence that socially transitioning young children is harmful. The ruling goes to great lengths to support those who silence, discredit, and remove anybody who dares ask if we are doing harm.
“I will appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The ruling refuses to confront the extremely important issues regarding safeguarding and transgender affirmation in primary schools which is at the heart of this case.
“Like all teachers at the school, I owed a safeguarding duty to Child X.
“I could not participate in causing harm to Child X. The tragic stories of ‘detransitioners’, clear expert scientific evidence, and the recent Supreme Court ruling, back and vindicate me.
“Teachers are being bullied not to question trans affirming policies, but evidence shows these policies put the welfare of children at serious risk.
“I was informed by my conscience as a Christian to live right before my God and also by the body of evidence I had researched which informed me clearly that social transitioning young children is harmful.”
Legal insanity
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said:
“Hannah’s story exposes the confusion and untruths that have been embedded in primary schools over human sexuality and identity. This has developed into an education crisis which needs to be stopped.
“Judge McTigue in his ruling has now taken this even further by ruling that it is not only lawful for children to hide their biological sex at school, but that it is lawful for it to be hidden into adulthood and even from their own children. This is legal insanity. If a teacher raises concern about this and shares their concern with a third party, they risk being ignored, sacked, losing their career and being treated like a criminal.
“Society has lost its moral compass and Judge McTigue’s ruling institutionalises the concealment of biological reality, which constitutes judicially endorsed deception on a mass scale.
Educators are now operating under a climate of fear, terrified that raising legitimate questions or safeguarding concerns will lead to accusations of transphobia or regulatory scrutiny with accusations of being a danger to children, even criminal. This stifling atmosphere prevents honest conversations and undermines the duty of care owed to all students.“
For years, parents and teachers who have raised safeguarding concerns over these issues have been ignored and disbelieved despite clear expert evidence demonstrating the harm trans affirmation causes.
“We will stand with Hannah for as long as it takes as she appeals this ruling. This is not just her fight, but a stand for truth, transparency, and the protection of children’s at the most fundamental level in our education system.”
Find out more about Hannah
