Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

468 replies

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 02/07/2021 09:02

It's finally here...
The judgement in the prisons judicial review R (FDJ) v SSJ
will be handed down by email at 10.30 am today...

Here is a reminder of what it was about:

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/judicial-review-campaign-update

OP posts:
yourhairiswinterfire · 03/07/2021 10:11

Either this alarming number of convicted sex offenders are trans - in which case there's a need for some urgent research and follow up action, given all the implications for woman and children who are forced to share 'single sex' spaces with them.

Or they're not trans - in which case they have no business sharing prisons etc with women. Hopefully now the conflict between the demands for validation versus the safety of women has been openly acknowledged by the courts, some pressure can be put on these well funded organisations - and the government - to address this dangerous situation.

Yes. Safeguards need strengthening. Urgently. Liz Truss needs to stop talking about protecting our single sex spaces and make it happen. It's not irrational, or bigoted or phobic to want to exclude the male sex class from our spaces. It's crucial.

If a woman can't expect to be protected from rape and sexual assault whilst she's locked up in prison of all places, then where can she expect it?

LizzieSiddal · 03/07/2021 10:04

I really hope the woman behind the JR does sue. I assume her legal team will be discussing her options with her now?

I think this is the way forward.Government departments will only change policy, when it looks like it will cost them millions, not to. At the moment there’s no incentive for the government to change any laws(because women don’t matter). Hit them in the pocket and they will begin to listen.

highame · 03/07/2021 09:59

[quote FlyPassed]I've woken up furious. Is it time to revisit the Hansard debate and demand answers directly from the MPs and Lords who hand waved away concerns about women's rights? We can't let them get away with this, they need to be held personally accountable

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945[/quote]
That is an incredible thread flypast I have just read some of it with my jaw on my chest. We wonder how we got where we have and it's staggering how long this has been going on. Wow!

MrsOvertonsWindow · 03/07/2021 09:53

It's time that the trans organisations spoke up about this and made some proposals for action:

Either this alarming number of convicted sex offenders are trans - in which case there's a need for some urgent research and follow up action, given all the implications for woman and children who are forced to share 'single sex' spaces with them.

Or they're not trans - in which case they have no business sharing prisons etc with women. Hopefully now the conflict between the demands for validation versus the safety of women has been openly acknowledged by the courts, some pressure can be put on these well funded organisations - and the government - to address this dangerous situation.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 03/07/2021 09:51

@Clymene

I'm really shocked about the OSP thing. That's just appalling. How did we get to a place where common sense has gone out of the window and been replaced with flimsy ideology?
I obtained the reports etc that went into the decision re OSP for transgender prisoners via FOIA. The only discussion relates to the fact that for transgender prisoners with no GRC (i.e. legal males who will have it used where their conviction indicates), the OSP has not been validated for transgender prisoners, so prison staff are urged to interpret results with caution.

NOTHING ABOUT THE IMPACT ON SAFETY OF WOMEN IN PRISON.

OP posts:
DialSquare · 03/07/2021 09:50

@OvaHere

Thank you *@KeepPrisonsSingleSex* what you have achieved in a short space of time is amazing. I will keep donating as you get closer to your target. Flowers
I second this. Thanks for what you are doing. I've just donated and will continue to do so regularly.
ScreamingMeMe · 03/07/2021 09:44

@HighNetGirth

Not as bad as some are making out. This is a loss but not a brush-off, if you see what I mean.

The judges refused to strike down the policy in its entirety but are leaving the door open (complete with a beckoning hand and a come-hither look) for challenges to individual cases where the policies are not followed to the letter and the risk assessment is not robust. Plus HMPPS is told to jolly well collect data on trans prisoners properly.

So, battle lost, outcome of war remains to be seen.

I agree. Great to see this hitting the media too. There's no way you can spin this really ( althoughI see someone has tried). More eyes will be opened.

Well done KeepPrisonsSingleSex

It's made me more hardline about the GRA actually. Now I think it needs re-working or replaced with something else. And anyone who's seen my previous posts about the GRA knows this is a turnaround for me.

highame · 03/07/2021 09:41

I second that ovehere in fact the write up brought back some positivity, which I desperately needed.

Clymene · 03/07/2021 09:39

I'm really shocked about the OSP thing. That's just appalling. How did we get to a place where common sense has gone out of the window and been replaced with flimsy ideology?

OvaHere · 03/07/2021 09:36

Thank you @KeepPrisonsSingleSex what you have achieved in a short space of time is amazing. I will keep donating as you get closer to your target. Flowers

Clymene · 03/07/2021 09:35

Just FYI, women might want to have a quick look on the petitions and activism board. Faster than googling ,,, Smile

merrymouse · 03/07/2021 09:32

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

In sum: Here we are balancing the rights of one group of people for validation, and the rights of another group of people for physical safety.

Obviously, since the first group consists of biological males, their right to validate themselves outweighs the right of the other group - which consists entirely of those pesky women - to be safe.

Fucking hell. How did we get here?

But this is actually a step forward because it acknowledges that competing rights exist. This is not ‘TWAW’.
FlyPassed · 03/07/2021 09:32

I've woken up furious. Is it time to revisit the Hansard debate and demand answers directly from the MPs and Lords who hand waved away concerns about women's rights? We can't let them get away with this, they need to be held personally accountable

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

highame · 03/07/2021 09:32

I am trying to formulate the letter to my MP but I just keep gathering more and more information and am actually losing the plot. Has anyone put together a bullet point list of issues that I might use before I drive myself to distraction?

GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman · 03/07/2021 09:30

In sum:
Here we are balancing the rights of one group of people for validation, and the rights of another group of people for physical safety.

Obviously, since the first group consists of biological males, their right to validate themselves outweighs the right of the other group - which consists entirely of those pesky women - to be safe.

Fucking hell. How did we get here?

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 03/07/2021 09:29

@Waitwhat23

This means that prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender and who have a GRC do not have the OSP used in their risk assessment. They must not have this risk assessment tool used. Because they are women and this tool is not for use with women.

This has left me speechless.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex thank you for continuing this fight. It's bizarre it's actually needed. I'll be doing some digging for your fund - I was impressed to see that its already over £3k (from yesterday?)

Thank you so much!

I have been blown away by the support - we will not let you down!

Obviously I can't link to the crowdfunder here, but I think I am allowed to C&P our Overview blurb:

When we first started almost 12 months ago, we consisted of a few boxes of stickers and a Twitter account run by 1 person as she recovered from covid. We have now grown. Some of our work you may be aware of.

In Parliament we have formed a growing and committed team of MPs and Peers across the political spectrum. KPSS has been responsible for 20 questions asked in both houses about the sex-based rights of women in prison. It was through one of these that we discovered that from 2021 the MoJ will report data on the number of GRC holders in prison.

In Scotland we are talking to MSPs about the specific issues that women in prison in Scotland face and are working to build on our existing alliances.

In Policy we have been consulted on the development of policy. It was through our work that we discovered that two policies relevant to women in prison are under review. This knowledge enabled all groups working for women’s sex-based rights to take action.

We have made over 10 consultation submissions to defend the rights of women in prison.

In the Media we have become a ‘go to’ for journalists who want a quote or to discuss the background to a story. Our letter calling for female prisoners to only be housed with prisoners of the same sex was published in the Telegraph. This was signed by former prison officers, barristers and academics including Professor Rob Wintemute, who co-authored the Yogyakarta Principles.

We have been invited to write for other organisations. We have been interviewed by various GC outlets. These have had over 12,000 views: important publicity for women in prison.

We have formed working relationships with other groups both in the GC and prisons sector to contribute our specialist knowledge.

Internationally we have expanded our work, most notably in the USA where we have a dedicated Campaign Director. Our work here has included: partnering with WHRC-USA on a nationwide FOIA initiative, submissions to State legislature, media and producing materials for in-person campaigning and protests.

From 1 woman we have grown to a team of volunteers, all of whom give their time and energy for free (as so many of us do!). But becoming a more professional organisation with a broader reach takes money. Your support through t-shirts and donations is hugely appreciated, but there is always a shortfall. To date we have been making up the difference out of our own pockets.

This crowdfunder will enable us to get to the next level and to increase our reach in terms of media platforms, content creation and distribution, advertisements, etc. There are many excellent groups doing excellent work. There are lots of requests for donations. We are no more worthy than any of these.

But we are the only group whose sole focus is the sex-based rights of women in prison. We will never deviate from this. We will never compromise. If we can’t get it right for women in prison, who can we get it right for?

Thank you so much for whatever help you can give us.

OP posts:
Datun · 03/07/2021 09:27

So a prisoner who has been convicted of sexual or sexually motivated offences, for whom the OSP would in every other set of circumstances be used, suddenly mustn't have it used by virtue of the fact of possession of a piece of paper.

I know my frustration is felt by every other woman reading this.

But it's quite fucking unbelievable that this cohort, who by the judges own words, are more likely to be sex offenders, are risk assessed less than other males who present a lower risk! And it's a risk assessment that determines whether they have access to highly vulnerable, incarcerated women.

It's absolutely insane.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 03/07/2021 09:27

@WeeSisters

Just to note, the woman who took the case was assaulted by a prisoner with a GRC. So some of the 90 sexual assaults by women are by trans prisoners.
Also correct.

Incidents in prison that involve a prisoner of the male sex who identifies as transgender and who has a GRC will record that prisoner's involvement as being that of a woman.

From 2021 data are being collected on GRC holders (previously this was always declared to be 'impossible' and 'not allowed' and according to Sarah Hannett barrister for SSJ potentially 'a criminal act'). How much that will trickle down through data collection & recording within the prison system is not yet known.

We are asking our supportive MPs and Peers to ask questions to ascertain this.

OP posts:
Waitwhat23 · 03/07/2021 09:24

This means that prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender and who have a GRC do not have the OSP used in their risk assessment. They must not have this risk assessment tool used. Because they are women and this tool is not for use with women.

This has left me speechless.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex thank you for continuing this fight. It's bizarre it's actually needed. I'll be doing some digging for your fund - I was impressed to see that its already over £3k (from yesterday?)

GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman · 03/07/2021 09:24

@OvaHere, it makes sane, detailed and accurate discussion almost impossible, doesn't it?

WeeSisters · 03/07/2021 09:14

Just to note, the woman who took the case was assaulted by a prisoner with a GRC. So some of the 90 sexual assaults by women are by trans prisoners.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex · 03/07/2021 09:13

@InvisibleDragon

Something worth noting about risk assessment is that there are standard risk assessment measures - like the HCR-20 - which are used to evaluate risk of violence and reoffending in men.

Those tools aren't validated for use with women, who have very different offending patterns. That often means that they are not used for trans women either. So I have very little confidence in the risk assessment process tbh.

(This isn't my area of expertise btw - but I heard a talk about risk assessment in prison last year and this came up)

That's correct. The OASyS Sexual Reoffending Predictor Score (OSP) is the only risk assessment tool that is used with sexual offenders. It is only for use with adult men. This means that prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender and who have a GRC do not have the OSP used in their risk assessment. They must not have this risk assessment tool used. Because they are women and this tool is not for use with women.
So a prisoner who has been convicted of sexual or sexually motivated offences, for whom the OSP would in every other set of circumstances be used, suddenly mustn't have it used by virtue of the fact of possession of a piece of paper.

The MoJ (as reflected in yesterday's judgement) repeatedly says that they risk assess thoroughly to keep women in prison. But how can this be the case when not just the main, but the ONLY, risk assessment tool for sexual offending cannot be used?

There are other problems with setting prisoners' security categorisation, which also extend to prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender and who do not have a GRC and who wish to be transferred to the female estate.

In short, a prisoner with time on their hands and the necessary inclination can most definitely game the system to obtain a lower risk assessment profile and security classification to their advantage.

OP posts:
yourhairiswinterfire · 03/07/2021 09:04

The judge practically recommended suing the MOJ.

I really hope the woman behind the JR does sue. I assume her legal team will be discussing her options with her now?

It's admirable that women are going for Judicial Reviews first, rather than suing, as a way to try and help other women and children, but it's not working.

Hopefully other women currently in prison are being made aware that they are being discriminated against, and can take legal action too, if they wish.

Looks like services losing £££ will be the only way to get the fuckers to (begrudgingly) consider women's dignity and safety.

toffeebutterpopcorn · 03/07/2021 08:59

I’m angry. Well more than usual. And as for the flipping olympics...

Marijuana XX
Babies XX
Larger bathing caps XX
You know where I’m going ...

ValancyRedfern · 03/07/2021 08:57

I am just so upset. Feeling despairing today.