If an abuser is on trial and claims to have transitioned.....

What do courts do about defendants who have changed their names (irrespective of gender identity)? Are witnesses or victims instructed which name to use when referring to them? Are witnesses and victims forbidden from using the name by which they knew the defendant at the time of the crime?

It would be perjury imo. Systems that mimic the original abuse can't deliver justice and are not fit for purpose.

The ETBB misstates the law

conservativesforwomen.org/the-judicial-college-is-captured-by-gender-ideology

It's just the court giving yet more power and control to rapists and abusers.

I cannot help, only thing to say is that I hope the victim sees justice done.

Neat way for the rapist to play victim in court and turn the victim of the crime into the bad person who is hurting their feelings every time she slips and says "his" penis, not "her" penis.

It feels like an opportunity for the abuser to stretch the opportunity of abusing to the very limits. Aided by the legal system. For what, in law, is only a male crime. Makes me feel quite sick tbh that the traumatised actual victim is forced through this abusive charade for the benefit and gratification of the perpetrator.

But perhaps the Forstater tribunal judgement has put an end to this nonsense for the victim and witnesses? I sincerely hope so.

Neat way for the rapist to play victim in court and turn the victim of the crime into the bad person who is hurting their feelings every time she slips and says "his" penis, not "her" penis.

This has happened. Poor rapist. Never mind, off you go to mix with the already traumatised women in the women's prison, where you belong.

Have fun!

Hhhm I need Rowantrees.
I’m reinventing the wheel here.

Yes

Found this.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

However, LGBT pressure group Stonewall said: ‘The language we use is hugely significant, especially when it comes to trans communities who face high levels of harassment and abuse in their daily lives. Using a trans person’s correct name and pronoun is as important as it is for anyone else. This helps ensure trans people are respected and accepted for who they are.’

The Judicial College declined to identify the external experts and organisations that assist in training and formulation of policy. ‘It is not necessary or in the public interest to make public the names of all those involved in this work,’ it said.

Looks like another area that requires transparency and challenging.

Surely calling a male person by a female pronoun and name would subtly influence the jury, especially if the crime was sexual? They might come to think by having to use these terms the defendant was not sexually attracted to women or is somehow softer and more feminine (we are the sex constantly told to 'be kind') and thus less likely to have committed the crime.

My assumption has always been that the guidance on pronoun use is for officers of the court and this has become broadened to encompass everyone including witnesses. The fact that this interpretation is being maintained when it will be clear to all concerned that this is wrong is telling.

I wonder if it would help to start by explaining that when you say "he" you are referring to the attacker's sex, and not their gender ID. That you accept their gender ID may not match their sex, but for the purpose of the trial you believe sex to be important. Especially in the context of a typically male-pattern crime committed by a male against a female where the sex of the victim was not accidental (ie sexual assault & /or because women are less likely to able to fight back). This is where misogyny being a hate crime might have helped.

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/

It also skews data with Norway having a 300% increase in female sex offenders since self id.
The a above policy analysis group has done work in this and has a way for ordinary women to help with this on their website.
Also in Scotland it is still not clear whether a women victim might not be accused of a hate crime if she refuses to talk about her rapist as 'she'

I would like to tell the judge that I refuse to perjure myself. I would like to refer to the attacker over and over again “that person sitting right there who assaulted me”. But in truth, I think I would be terrified and intimidated enough already and would do what the judge said, even though I would be furious with myself later.

It just becomes ridiculous. Is she supposed to say, a male bodied person with a masculine name and a beard approached me. This is the person now named Julie who is standing opposite me in a dress?

This is exactly what I would do.

Given that witnesses have to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I have always wondered what would happen if one pointed out they were being asked to lie.

Certainly in previous cases it has been expected. But in light of recent events, I'm not sure the victim could or should be compelled to use language that doesn't fit in with their 'belief' (knowledge of facts is more appropriate). Particularly as this adds to the victims trauma. I wonder whether there has been some sort of takeover of language here actually, because it sounds entirely inappropriate to force the victim to do this.