2009 case of a judge ordering an intact male rapist into a female prison because he had a GRC

[Barracker]

In another thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370578-House-of-Commons-report-on-Trans-Prisoners-Published-today?watched=1&msgid=81156014#81156014
there is a link to a report published today about trans prisoners.
There's a reference in that report to this court case R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for Justice and another (2009).

Read it, and gnash your teeth at the horror that the GRA 2004 created for women.

Key points of the case:

1. Male, 27, imprisoned for life. Was sentenced to an automatic “two strikes” life sentence for offences, committed while a man, of manslaughter and attempted rape.
2. Fully intact male genitalia.
3. Even in the male prison he was segregated from the MALE population for safety
4. He had been GRANTED a GRC. The panel were 'satisfied' that he had lived for two years 'in role as a woman'
5. He was seeking gender reassignment surgery; however, the gender identity clinic treating him would not approve gender reassignment surgery until he had spent a period living “in role” as a woman in a female prison
6. The original decision was made NOT to transfer him: "The claimant applied on several occasions to the defendant secretary of state for justice for transfer to a general female estate (not segregated). The secretary of state refused the transfer. The reasons given were, inter alia, the risk that the claimant posed to women given that she still possessed male genitalia, and the potential cost of segregation."
7. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal. His lawyers argued that according to the GRA under s 9 that a person was “for all purposes” of the acquired gender. Penis notwithstanding.
8. The defence (the secretary of state which had denied the transfer) argued that s9 of the GRA didn't mean we should have to ignore a man's penis or the consequences of it, like the costs of having to segregate him from women to keep them safe if he was transferred.
9. His Lordship had this to say (in so many words)

10. Ok, so I won't force people to ignore the fact that this 'woman' has a penis. You can take the penis into account only insofar as it has an effect on your responsibility to the other prisoners. 11. However, this 'woman' is currently in a male prison, and should be treated exactly as you would theoretically treat any biological woman in a male prison. Regarding matters of external appearance, such as clothes and cosmetics his rights to those are being impinged. (Not kidding on this) 12. Also, keeping him in a male prison barred his ability to qualify for surgery, thanks to the gender identity clinic insisting that he had to be transferred to get it. His Lordship decided that interfered with his personal autonomy too much. 13. There was also a dollop of "we all agree he offends partly because he wants to be a woman so much" and "if we don't transfer him to the women's estate his risk profile will probably get worse" 14. It was concluded that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the effect of continued detention of the rapist in a male prison. The original refusal to put him in with the women was held to have breached the rapist's rights under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). 15. So the transfer was then approved.

The end.

TL;DR
A genitally intact male rapist/man slaughterer with a life sentence was transferred to a women's prison despite an attempt by the Secretary of State to block it because:
A. The GRA had made him legally female
B. A gender identity clinic said he couldn't get his penis removed until he'd lived with it in a female prison for two years first
C. It was very mean to not let him have lipstick and dresses in male prison
D. If we didn't let him move he'd probably be much nastier than he already was
E. His rights were being breached.

#RepealTheGRA

Fucking hell. Who the fuck came under with this utter shambolic shite? 🤬

Up not under. Can't even type properly I'm so angry.

And, after release, this celebrity was invited by Lord Patel to address the House of Lords on the topic of transgender prisoners: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3180050-Invited-to-talk-at-the-House-of-Lords

That sounds a lot like the 'Karen Jones' case - right age, sentence, crimes. Last December, was invited to speak at the House of Lords. Posed for smiley pictures with Lord Patel.

oh, snap!

Thanks Arran. I just can't do any more today.

The world hates women, and the GRA is evil. Men cannot become women.

The GRA needs to be repealed.

Enough now.

I think we're going to have to start chaining ourselves to railings.

My major concern is that in the same way KJ was quietly released - this will be the obvious path for some offenders.

The physical infrastructure of the prison estates literally could not cope with more than a tiny number of prisoners Self-ID'ing. They'd have to be released in a comparable way to KJ.

By the way, lives in Leeds now, West Yorkshire.

I'd be interested to know which gender identity clinic pushed for this.

Proof that law has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or common sense, if it were needed. Nor do many of its practitioners.

Oh thank goodness for you barracker. I read this case the other day and so wanted to highlight the exact points that you have made but have not been ble to write it all up (fucking brain). I am so grateful you have done this.

The decision was desperately unfair and cruel and I believe wrong in its interpretation, deserving of judical review. Time, yes I know :(

Amongst other things serious flaws, how can it be right that this male (or any other but put that aside for now) is considered 'for all practical purposes' a woman'.

I believe the original intention of this (though flawed in itself) was to refer to post-op transsexuals per the Goodwin case, where the change of birth cert was seen as 'a reward' for going to the lengths of surgery.

But in this case, for all practical purposes? NO. His toilet functions and needs are practically (as in literally) male. His sexual function is practically (as in actually) male. He tried to rape with his male penis. For any person to deal with him medically or physcially he is literally, actually and practically for all purposes MALE. To prove this we can say, in what practical way is he of the oppoite sex, a woman, a female? He has had no need of tampons, or a smear test, or maternity rights, or the pill, the morning after pill, female inferility treatments, a bra. He does not HAVE to sit down or squat to pee, he can aim with his male penis. HE HAS NO VAGINA. Name one thing of practical purpose that makes him a woman. The law is not fulfilled.

The only thing was administative, on paper, a lady name. Dresses and skirts and tights and long nails and high heels as we know are not 'practical' at all. Merely impractical superficial, trappings.

The law is not fulfilled.

I could scream at the injustice.

What I want to know is who in the government was fighting this case - we must let them know that they were right to fight it and that maybe we can work together now.

It is not too late. The law on this has been wrong form the beginning. Women have inalienable female sex-based rights. The Yogyakarta (un)Principles have been repeatedly rejected by the UN (shamefully piggy-backing on gay and lesbian rights).

I am with you 100% Barracker. There is no such thing as a human right to 'change sex/gender'. NO RIGHT AT ALL TO STEAL WOMEN'S SEX -BASED FEMALE RIGHTS AND GIVE THEM TO MEN (or be given way by the traitor that is Stephen Whittle). The right to freedom of expression was already in existence.

#RepealtheGRA

A report of the intial case in 2003. 2003! And referred to as a woman even then, post Goodwin, pre GRA.

www.standard.co.uk/news/transexual-rapist-jailed-6971617.html

Karen Jones who was convicted as Mark John Lawson, then became Karen Lawson, now Jones (how can anyone keep up.. or keep track).

Jones said "she was angry that her victim was a woman and she was not". So narcissitc, entitled rage then. Great.

The judge said "Until you have full and proper treatment, I consider you to be potentially an extremely serious risk to any member of the public you associate with, a risk that could easily lead to that person's death."

Oh great, then release them (after letting them off serving life) to use women's toilets and women's spaces. Do we know if they have had surgery now? Because they weren't compelled to.

Here they are in January in a lovely photo with Lord Patel of BRADFORD, courtesy of facebook and the Daily Mail.

seafret

Worth putting an abridged version of this on the AIBU thread to keep it bumped?

And wasn't there some on here who was repeatedly trying to pin down Lord Patel for a meeting to discuss why he uses convicted unrepentent rapists as his consultants

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3192486-Lord-Patel-Karen-Jones-thread-anyone-want-to-go-to-House-of-Lords-to-talk-to-Lord-Patel

Found the thread

Fucking hell.

Will try Crackpots my brain may explode though. Could anyone help me please?

I have 2 other threads to put in AIBU. I hve been tyring to get them up for days but it is so diffiult.

Ben/ Lana Laws convicted of images of child but avoided jail when found to be living with 17 year old girl he met online, an in breach of Sex Offenders Act - not a predator apparently.

And Leverton (a male identifying as a woman) convicted of having extreme inages of child abuse in July last year where the judge was actualy livid that sentencing meant that jail was pointless as the max was 12 months in jail, reduced to 8 for a guilty plea, but would only serve 4. (Although 4 months would be better than nothing). www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/woman-sentenced-images-child-sex-256657 Repoted as a woman, recored as a woman surely.

And who, when arrested, "Leverton, of Stone Hill, East Stoke, Stoke-sub-Hamdon, near Yeovil, told police "It's a girl thing. I like them ages six and up."

Both need to go on AIBu, I have posted Laws in FWR. but the second esepcially is an AIBU. coming to your toilets soon by self iD.

Sick sick sick :(

I think I could pare it down a bit more.

1. My boyfriend would not pay for my SRS, so I was forced to kill him (those female hormones made me do it)
2. Out of juvvie, who is going to pay for my SRS? Had better commit rape
3. Powers that Be decide 'they' need to spend two years 'living as a woman' so transfer to female estate, whereby
4. Wearing dresses and more make-up means ticking the woman box
5. Actual female prisoners, at the mercy of all of the above.

I utterly sympathise. It's overwhelming when you realise how little of a shit our society gives about women and girls. Once you see it, you can't unsee. It's a terrible thing that, for me (having two sons( the most I have to worry about for them is trying (with my DH) to raise them to be decent human beings. For mothers of girls, they don't even have that level of illusory control

Would you mind if I just link to this thread on the AIBU thread?

It is heartening to see that whatever other rights they'll take from women, our right to a dress and lipstick is unassailable under any and all circumstances.

These need to go here and AIBU
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3337063-RESOURCE-THREAD-Transwomen-in-Women-s-Prisons

Copying to other threads now. Sorry I forgot about that thread.

It it tkaes me a very long time to type so is a bit tricky.

I’m looking really really really hard, and I can’t see that judge saying anything about the impact on female prisoners. Wait, he isn’t…
So basically attempted rapist and killer with fully intact male genitalia and a well documented hatred of women, is placed in a prison full of vulnerable women as a prop to get there SRS, am I getting this right?
Jesus fucking Christ! Show me the railings and pass me the handcuffs.

A few days ago Graham Linehan tweeted something like "how come women don't have strokes from rage every day?". There are times when it all gets too much and I have to stop reading because it's so upsetting.