(LifeSiteNews) — In a stunning update to the UK employment tribunal case of Sandie Peggie, the NHS Fife nurse accused of “misgendering” by a trans-identifying doctor, the Telegraph has reported on allegations that “artificial intelligence was used to write two ‘made-up’ quotes backing its key conclusion.”
As LifeSiteNews reported on December 10, Peggie won a partial victory against NHS Fife after she objected to trans-identifying doctor “Beth” Upton’s presence in the female changerooms. She filed a claim of “harassment related to protected belief,” sexual harassment,” and “indirect discrimination and victimization.” The tribunal affirmed the claim of harassment and rejected the others.
In his 312-page ruling, Judge Alexander Kemp rejected the claims of discrimination and victimization on the basis that it is “not inherently unlawful” for a man to use the female changing room. Gender-critical activists had been disappointed by the ruling, as they had hoped that Peggie’s suit would be a test case applying the Supreme Court’s April judgment that “woman” in the Equalities Act refers to sex.
Throughout his ruling, the Telegraph reported, Kemp “cited other legal cases to support his conclusion that it did not contradict the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year … [h]owever, the ruling was reissued on Thursday afternoon after it emerged that a quote he attributed to a tribunal involving Maya Forstater did not appear in that case’s judgement.”
Forstater, the spokeswoman for the women’s rights group Sex Matters, had responded to the initial ruling by stating that it “sought to reach a spurious ‘balance’ between a woman’s right to undress with privacy and dignity and the right of an employee with the protected characteristic of gender assignment not to be discriminated against in employment … the tribunal has failed to provide them with the clarity they need in order to be confident that they can simply and clearly say ‘No’ to men who want to use women’s spaces.”
Upon closer reading of the ruling, however, Forstater noted that one of the quotes purporting to be from her own employment case (which she won) was “completely made up”—and that the ruling’s fake version of her quote actually changed its meaning:
One of the many things wrong with the Sandie Peggie judgment.
This “quote” from my judgment doesn’t come from my judgment. It is completely made up. 🤯 pic.twitter.com/F7GW6CL8H4
— Maya Forstater (@MForstater) December 10, 2025
“Judge Sandy Kemp and the Judicial Office need to explain exactly how this bogus quote made its way into the ruling,” J.K. Rowling posted in response. “Misrepresentations of the Forstater ruling are commonplace in the trans activist community, but for this to turn up in an actual court ruling is truly shocking.”
The tribunal hastily issued a “certificate of correction” claiming that there had been a “clerical mistake(s), error(s) or omissions(s),” but “the Judicial Office refused to say where the original quote came from or whether AI was involved.”
READ: Nurse claims partial victory in transgender change room case after two-year legal battle
Following that correction, another fictitious quote promptly surfaced. “Mr. Kemp cited a Supreme Court case called Lee v Ashers Baking Co LTD as he discussed how the protected characteristic of being a woman did not take precedence over that of being a trans person,” the Telegraph reported. “He said the case ‘highlighted the necessity of balancing competing human rights without holding that one has priority over any other.’”
Kemp quoted the Supreme Court as follows: “The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and to freedom of expression, enshrined in articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, are protected by sections 6 and 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The rights to respect for private and family life, and to freedom from discrimination, protected by articles 8 and 14, are also engaged. There is no hierarchy of rights; all are to be treated with equal respect.”
The quote does not actually appear in the ruling Kemp is referencing—and yet it was contained in the corrected version of Peggie tribunal ruling re-issued on Thursday.
“I am wondering how many Certificates of Correction Judge Kemp is planning on adding to the Sandie Peggie judgment?” Forstater wrote in a December 11 thread posted to X. “Perhaps in the next one he could correct the title of my case. It is CGD Europe.”
“The judge has now replaced the fake quote from my case with a real quote from the summary of my judgment,” Forstater said. “The real quote now doesn’t make sense for the conclusion the judge draws from it (my case was not about the protected characteristic of sex). The argument here is really quite torturous now.” She then highlighted the mistakes in the ruling:
I am wondering how many Certificates of Correction Judge Kemp is planning on adding to the Sandie Peggie judgment?
Perhaps in the next one he could correct the title of my case. It is CGD Europe. pic.twitter.com/Mmr0zuZP0s
— Maya Forstater (@MForstater) December 12, 2025
Forstater noted that it appears AI had been used in drafting the ruling. “However the errors got in there, it’s for the judge to check that the text is accurate,” she said. “The fact that all the errors go in the same direction, and the fact that they’ve corrected the error in my case by adding a completely different quote and saying, ‘never mind, it still says the same thing’ is just extraordinary. Obviously they’ve [the Peggie legal team] announced that the case is going to be appealed and all the substantive points of law will be tested in a higher court.”
“It is an incontrovertible fact that the judgment includes supposed quotes from specific judgments that do not appear in those judgments,” Dr. Michael Foran, a gender law expert from Oxford University, told the Telegraph. “That in itself is extraordinary. How this happened and what consequences will flow from it are unclear at this point, but there are incredibly serious questions that need to be answered.”
Additionally, it is not clear to me that the tribunal even has the power to reissue the judgment with these quotations removed. The power that permits reissuing judgments is confined to correcting clerical errors and accidental slips or omissions, not substantial changes of this magnitude.
When the Telegraph asked the Judicial Office for comment, they stated that no explanation for the now multiple and consequential errors found throughout the ruling would be given. This is particularly significant because the judicial system has frequently been accused of ideological bias and favoring the LGBT movement.
“The law should be fair & seen to be fair,” Forstater wrote on X. “Claimants put their life on hold & spend on lawyers to get justice. It is utterly disrespectful of Kemp to produce a judgment which does not meet basic standards. Making up quotes and then quietly changing them is not acceptable.”
Sandie Peggie had already confirmed that she would be appealing the tribunal’s ruling prior to the revelation of multiple errors.
