GRC for transwoman with illegal explosives conviction

There is a right of appeal on a point of law. This judge has gone beyond that by permitting new evidence that was never submitted to the panel.

Was this appeal funded by legal aid?

If the passport office turns down an application because the relavent criteria haven’t been met, can you appeal that decision? Or do you have to go away and re-apply demonstrating you do fulfill the criteria?

Seems analogous to me.

The right of appeal is the one thing that I have flagged up in my response to the consultation as being unfair about the existing process. There should be a route for a review of the decision, without having to apply from scratch or take it to court

Popchyk, no, she applied three times and was refused three times (it's true that the panel asked a series of follow ups each time rather than refusing her right away). Although there may be no right of appeal, you can apply multiple times, as in this case, and you can challenge the decision before the courts too, as in this case. There is no right of appeal only in a limited sense, ie there is no appeals procedure (you are expected to apply again from scratch) (unless you challenge the panel before the courts as in this case).

Sounds like at least one doctor (the most experienced in the field, it looks like) refused to give a diagnosis. So the person just started shopping around until they got one (I'm guessing that you can get an online diagnosis from certain ahem practitioners).

Cwen, sounds like this person was never refused exactly, but was directed on a number of occasions to submit correct documentation which they repeatedly failed to do. Therefore the panel could not progress the application.

I'm starting to wonder if there aren't judges we should be side-eying along with politicians.

Bex Stinson (Stonewall) speaking on Woman’s Hour this morning said that there was no right of appeal to the decisions of a GRC panel. So how does this person get a panel’s decision overturned by a judge?

I have a feeling that no one knows the process and are just making stuff up to suit their argument.

I wonder how a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is established?

I know there are no blood tests or scans possible. But how can a doctor diagnose after one consultation? Is it just a case of answering questions satisfactory and having id?

Where is the safeguarding for both the patient and women and girls?

Bex Stinson (Stonewall) speaking on Woman’s Hour this morning said that there was no right of appeal to the decisions of a GRC panel. So how does this person get a panel’s decision overturned by a judge?

Okay read most of it.

Bloke is in and out of prison. Married 3 times, 7 children. History of severe psychiatric problems, self-harm and personality disorder.

Sued the prison service for negligence before any of the gender stuff surfaced.

Claims to have lived as a woman since 2008 but only started the process to get a GRC when in prison in 2011.

Doctors would not give a diagnosis of gender dysphoria so this person shopped around for a doctor to give the diagnosis. Got it from Webberly and their own GP (who they had only just met, it seems) said that it looked like this person intended to live as a woman. This person later met with another doctor once who did an assessment with no medical notes of this person's psychiatric history and seemingly no knowledge of their time in jail. This doctor did give a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but it was rejected by the panel because the assessment was incomplete.

This person kept getting rejected by the panel because of missing evidence, assessments and identity documents being in a male name. Also wouldn't give the panel current addresses or GP details.

"On 10 November 2017, she was recalled to prison whilst on licence again and at the time of the hearing before me was still in custody."

So when incarcerated again, this person was assessed yet again by another doctor who did give a diagnosis of dysphoria.

Given that this person is currently in custody, this person will be transferred to a women's prison now. Still has the penis.

It seems the applicant applies for a GRC three times and was refused each time. The first time, when asked to produce evidence of gender dysphoria, the best she could come up with was the letter from Dr Barrett saying he was sceptical about it. When rejecting her for the third time, the panel referred back to this and also to the fact that another medical report submitted was incomplete. But the judge decided that a number of different doctors have now agreed that the applicant is dysphoric and that the panel had no discretion to secondguess that.

Well colour me surprised to see Helen Webberley involved here!

I know it's missing the point, but I'm surprised that a father of seven could convince a panel that they have gender dysphoria.

Ending up with 7 children seems surprising if one isn't fond of one's penis or one's sexual role as a male.

What could possibly go wrong, part 4645756878768.

How many actual females have a conviction for possession of illegal explosives? Now how many males?

Wow, women are committing a lot of crimes lately aren't they?

Have to say, I’ve skim read the judgement. Seems fine to me. Evidently a bit of a nightmare with the panel requesting all sorts of docs that the appellant couldn’t initially produce, practical difficulties as she was in prison, all sorts of directions, but in the end they had enough evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements. There is a statutory right of appeal to a court from the decision of the panel, and that appeal was made on judicial review type grounds - eg the panel taking into account irrelevant issues. The statute also provides that on appeal, the court has the power to order a GRC, which it did. The process is meant to be facilitative not restrictive, and the panel should not second guess a diagnosis of gender dysphoria made by a Doctor of sufficient expertise in the area.

James Barrett, from the London Gender Clinic in 2014:

"If collateral corroboration is not convincingly elicited I would have grave doubts and wonder whether [Ms Jay]’s somewhat dependent personality had caused her to unwisely latch onto a change of gender role as a seemingly universal solution to both why her life had gone wrong and how it might be rectified.”

"On 20 June 2015, Ms Jay was recalled to prison. On 2 July 2015, she filed her second application to the Gender Recognition Panel. On this application, she identified 18 December 2008 as being the date from which she could provide evidence that she had lived full time in her acquired gender. She identified two doctors to provide the reports required by s.3(1) – her GP and a “gender specialist” called Dr Helen Webberly. She enclosed a copy of the further statutory declaration signed in March 2015. On 11 July 2015, Ms Jay wrote again to the panel complaining that she felt discriminated against and stating that the process was unfair to prisoners who were unable to gather all the information required. On 27 July, her GP submitted a medical report in the pro forma for gender recognition under the GRA. She ticked the box indicating that Ms Jay had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or a gender-related disorder. She set out information from Ms Jay’s medical records."

Very interesting. Got to have dinner now but will update later.

link to the full judgement

Will have a proper read later.

The person was represented by Claire McCann. She spoke in favour of self-ID at the Women's Equality Party conference this year.

Claire McCann is also representing the transgender person who is seeking to remove sexual crimes committed as a man from his record.

I'm just...really...what?

How in heck is any of this happening? Total disbelief moment here.

Ah, thanks. I miss read the article. I think it might be because I thought someone needed to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria to get a GRC.

I don't think they did convince the GR panel. They appealed against the refusal to be given a GRC, Lord Justice Baker overturned the decision and issued the GRC on the grounds that they had difficulty complying with the requirements on the basis of them being a prisoner 🙄.

I know it's missing the point, but I'm surprised that a father of seven could convince a panel that they have gender dysphoria.

Kill me now, Im having another rock bottom moment with all of this.