Judicial review for woman prisoner alleging sexual assault by trans rapist in prison

@caughtalightsneeze it’s a typo - it should be “Barney Castle” not “Bally Castle” although it’s more usual for Barnard Castle to be shortened further - to just “Barney”.

The redacted evidence is not unusual in a court situation. There are good reasons why privilege exists. I am extremely curious to know what the advice was. I am tending towards cock up rather than conspiracy in terms of the late submission. It was never going to make the case go away. There is no reason to think that the civil servants at the MoJ we’re aware of the Select Committee plans. More likely they were running around on Brexit stuff and dropped the ball.
Doesn’t stop it being annoying and frustrating for the women at risk.

In my experience legal advice is never simply 100 per cent for one approach, it will refer to risks both ways. I imagine that the advice could not in any way come down in favour as it's not legal so by showing all the advice it's obvious someone made a choice whilst knowing the risk to women. I guess there is some frantic argument going on now as that person seeks to claim parliamentary privilege and avoid being exposed for the decision.

I can understand why a private citizen might need the option to have evidence they present to court redacted, but how on earth can it be allowed for the SoS, in their official capacity? This isn't exactly a matter of national security.

The public needs to know how the hell we ended up with men in women's prisons!

I wonder if Frances Crook will have any comments or views on this JR.

It puzzles me that certain lobby groups get loads of tax payers' money and lottery money, but groups fighting for women's rights get nothing.

Sorry to see this delay. Very frustrating.

It’s only a lawyer. Lobby groups would not be covered.

Just a reminder that I did post upthread here that I would start a new thread to focus on the court case as not many women would know about it if tagged on here.

The fact that it got derailed is as much to do with being taken in and responding to trolls! By the end of last night I was all for starting another thread. But as it turns out the case is now adjourned. Have pasted into that thread the interesting comment from Keep Prisons Single Sex.

Just to clarify Sub Judice and Parliamentary Privilege are complex areas and so the existence of so many relevant cases may create problems even if the the MP’s feel they argue Parliamentary Privilege. It would be potentially be problematic if they were to come to any conclusion that could be construed as an attempt to influence a live case. The rule may also act to block any debate on their findings. You really need an expert on Erskine May on this.

And if they thought it was good advice the why not use it in court to explain why they are right?

Bad advice?

But if they simply thought it was bad advice then they wouldn’t have used it - it was the defendant (SoS) that put it forward to support their case wasn’t it?

They should not be doing anything that might be seen as an attempt to influence a current case. They will have to tread very carefully given how many cases there are. The timing of this call may be problematic for them too.

Legal advice is usually privileged so you don’t have to disclose it in court. This is normal and is to protect people’s right to take advice. However, you can elect to waive privilege. My understanding is that it is relevant here because that advice may directly affect the law / guidance given by the State.

The cynical me believes it is not the advice per se that is what they don't want known but who gave the advice, their background and qualifications and how far the tentacles of the advice giver extend into and compromise Government Departments and individuals.

That sounds very plausible.

I hope the defendant will have to pay a lump of costs in relation to today.

(Taxpayers' money of course but still)

Thanks Nic.

Does this mean we now can't talk about this in any submissions to the new GRA inquiry? I noticed Maya Forstater had tweeted that the committee wouldn't accept comments on any matter that was currently before a court of law.

Thank you for everything you're doing Nicola

The cynical me believes it is not the advice per se that is what they don't want known but who gave the advice, their background and qualifications and how far the tentacles of the advice giver extend into and compromise Government Departments and individuals.

Thank you Nicola - you and your colleagues are doing such great work, we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Thank you also for your work with World Rugby. You are shero through & through. 💪

Why is it redacted? What possible reason? So sorry for the women taking action and supporters.