Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

So it would be a case of taking the bench book to court then!

You could try...

Google, right to be forgotten has been invoked already?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Can you link to the sentencing issue you refer to?

(I've googled but can't find anything)

Thanks

It will be interesting to see how they respond. I am guessing there will be a neutral fob-off saying that the judge did not make the witness perjure herself. That is true- he did not. Perjury relates to the material elements of the witness testimony. The defendant's sex was not material to this because there was no confusion over the identity of the person who punched Ms McLachlan. This related solely to how they were referred to in court.

It was a good verdict though. I understand Ms McLachlan's desire to refer to the defendant as a man, but I don't think complaining about the judge's conduct will get very far because as crome posted, he was following the guidelines and this had nothing to do with perjury.

^^ see the Bench Book quite above - the judge was following official guidelines, and in the judge’s court you do what the judge says.

OK, thanks Susan and crome. So it would be a case of taking the bench book to court then!

[email protected]

check out Bella Bailey @cattdeskatgmail - they are writing to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about this - asking if it is now law that female victims of male violence must now perjure themselves by calling the defendant "she" - you can add your name by DMing her.

This was written in to the Bench Book as far back as 2013.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/equal-treatment-bench-book-2013-with-2015-amendment.pdf

"Transgender people, whether they are pre or post‐operative trans people or trans people who do not intend to have surgery, should be referred to in their preferred or acquired gender. They should not be addressed as if they remained in the gender that was assigned to them at birth."

Does that mean you would be in contempt of court if a rogue judge instructed you to call a man 'she' and you kept forgetting?

Potentially, yes. If you disobey a court order or an instruction from the judge, you can potentially be held in contempt.

But on what basis can a judge enforce the use of pronouns which are not the ones associated with a defendant's legal sex?

They could tell you that unless you refer to the defendant in the way they have asked you to, you will be held in contempt. I really don't think any judge would do this though- it seems so over the top.

Are there any avenues open to pursue this legally? Would the victim have to sue the judge for making her perjure herself or something?

I really don't think there are, no. The judge was not making her perjure herself. Everyone knew who she was referring to, i.e. the defendant. It did not change any of the material facts in the witness evidence because even if the defendant had been a woman, they would have been guilty of assault.

But on what basis can a judge enforce the use of pronouns which are not the ones associated with a defendant's legal sex?

I think the point is she was not testifying as to the gender/sex of the defendant. She was testifying as to what happened that day. Everyone knew who the defendant was- she was merely being asked to refer to them as a woman. It’s not quite the same as the judge making her lie under oath because none of her evidence related to the defendant’s sex.

Does that mean you would be in contempt of court if a rogue judge instructed you to call a man 'she' and you kept forgetting?

Are there any avenues open to pursue this legally? Would the victim have to sue the judge for making her perjure herself or something? I’d love for this to be put to a court, not as a side issue in another case, but as the actual reason for being in court.

There are male medical doctors encouraging bullying of non compliant women on Twitter. New witch hunters!

Excuse my ignorance but are wit eases in vases like this asked to swear on the bible? Id have serious issues calling a biological male "she". Especially if he had assaulted me...

I’m surprised this hasn’t some how been made a bigger deal of in the press.
A woman was forced by a judge to lie under oath about a scientific fact in order to spare feelings.

Judges can surely not put more weight on feelings over fact?

I guess potentially the judge could have held her in contempt of court in that he asked her to use a particular pronoun and she disobeyed him. Disobeying a judge is contempt. I think that would have gone a bit far though.

As for the truth bit, it doesn’t really go to the truth of her evidence so I don’t think she could have used that as a defence to being held in contempt.

In reality I think it’s more likely that the judge would have made a show of asking her to do it several times and then giving up essentially if she refused to do it. He would have created a lot more work for himself if he chucked her in a cell for using the ‘wrong’ pronouns....

I am still aghast that Maria McLachlan was repeatedly instructed by a judge to use female pronouns for Tara Wood, who had assualted her at Speakers' Corner

Don't forget the judge actually reduced the defendants sentence because McLachlan kept forgetting to use the "correct" gender.

I am amazed that a judge could behave so bizarrely.