Government of Jersey

Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance

Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Infrastructure and Environment and published on 17 November 2025.
Prepared internally, no external costs.

Request 757743918

The UK Supreme Court ruled on 16 April 2025 to clarify that the definition of sex in the Equality Act (2010) means biological sex.

In June 2025, the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review published an article concluding that Jersey should be applying the UK Supreme Court ruling here.

This is a significant and important development with far-reaching consequences for Jersey policy and practice.

I have contacted all Jersey government departments with guidance which currently does not comply with the UK Supreme Court. One has already responded confirming that their guidance has been updated to reflect the UK Supreme Court ruling on the basis of advice from the Law Officers' Department.

The Guidance for which the Department of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible: ““Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance" (July 2017) is non-compliant with the law.
This includes the following:

1. Treatment as presented gender for all purposes: Treating trans customers as their presented (acquired) gender for all purposes, including facility access, conflicts with the EA 2010's biological sex definition.

2. Access to opposite-sex changing facilities

3. Compelled pronouns use and language

Please provide copies of any internal correspondence, reports, memoranda, or meeting minutes produced or received by the Department of Infrastructure and Environment between 16 April 2025 and the present that discuss, assess, or acknowledge the need to revise the Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance (July 2017) to align with the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review (June 2025) article, or advice from the Law Officers' Department (LOD) regarding compliance with this ruling.

Please provide any records, including but not limited to meeting minutes, project plans, correspondence with the Law Officers' Department, internal briefings, or working group documents, created or received by the Department of Infrastructure and Environment between 16 April 2025 and the present, that detail actions, plans, or discussions undertaken to review or revise the Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance (July 2017) in response to the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.

Please provide a copy of any updated version of the Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance (July 2017) held by the Department of Infrastructure and Environment as of the date of this request.

Please provide copies of any documents, such as project plans, timelines, correspondence, or meeting minutes, held by the Department of Infrastructure and Environment as of the date of this request, that outline the planned timeline or schedule for revising the Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance (July 2017) to align with the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.

Response

1, 2 and 4

Documents providing the requested information are attached.

Freedom of Information response 757743918 - Attachment.pdf

Personal information within the documents has been redacted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.
Some of the requested information is exempt from release under Article 31 (Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer) and Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Article 31 and Article 35 are qualified exemptions, therefore, public interest tests have been applied and are shown at the end of this response.

3
The Changing Room Access Policy (formerly known as the 'Sports Facilities Transgender Users Guidance) is exempt under Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the internal guidance document is currently policy under development.
Release of the information at this stage would likely generate misinformed debate. This could affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Articles applied

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

Article 31 - Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer

Information is qualified exempt information if it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Public interest test

Article 31 of the FOI Law recognises the longstanding constitutional Convention that government does not reveal whether Law Officers have or have not advised on a particular issue, or the content of any such advice.

The underlying purpose of this confidentiality is to protect fully informed decision making by allowing government to seek legal advice in private, without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of the advice or the fact that it was sought. It ensures that government is neither discouraged from seeking advice in appropriate cases, nor pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases.

The request for information about whether or not advice was sought or will be sought falls within the Article 31 exemption.

With regard to the public interest arguments, HM Treasury v IC [2009] EWHC 1811 Blake J recognised that when engaged, the Convention will carry significant weight in the public interest test. The Convention has been considered by the Office of the Information Commissioner and was held to be part of Jersey law. Whilst it is recognised that the strong public interest in protecting Law Officers' advice may still be overridden in some cases if there are particularly strong factors in favour of disclosure, conversely, disclosing the advice or whether advice was or will be sought could inhibit the Law Officers from (1) giving frank advice (2) inhibit government bodies in taking advice for fear of its publication; and (3) inhibit the full disclosure to the Law Officers of all material relevant to the advice being sought and therefore real weight ought to be afforded to this aspect of the Law Officers' Convention. Disclosing either the legal advice or the fact of whether specific advice was sought to the public is not a greater consideration of public interest that requires disclosure of the advice or confirmation of what advice was given. It does not outweigh the three principles set out above which require the long-standing Law Officer Convention to be maintained.

Therefore, the balance is in favour of maintaining the exemption and it is not considered the public interest in disclosure outweighs the preservation of the Convention on this occasion.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest Test

The following considerations were considered:

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions have taken place.
Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.
The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.
Release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate in. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.
Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information. 