Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

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.

Tara Wood is scientifically male.

Maria McLachlan was instructed to do this, by a Judge, while under oath to tell the truth, in a Court of Law.

What would have happened if Maria had refused to do it on account of it not being the truth?

Anyone know the legal position on this?

Ok, but again Susan, how can a female victim be compelled to address her 'male' attacker as 'she' in a courtroom? And be censured for failing to do so?

I agree that it's not ideal, but as I outlined above, that is the position we are in. I think that if judges did not follow the guidelines, they would be attacked for breaching the Equality Act.

Julia Long apparently shouted 'guilty, guilty, guilty' into her phone when the verdict was read and then shouted something along the lines of 'guilty of male violence' to the courtroom. Again, I see her point but it probably doesn't help.

Does Tara Wood have a GRC? If TW does, we wouldn't be allowed to say so by law, under the EA(2010)

The question is whether he has a female birth certificate.

I don't think TW even has a GRC, let alone a birth certificate.

What Julia said after the verdict and outside the court was not relevant to Maria's case, nor should it be.

"Julia Long apparently shouted 'guilty, guilty, guilty' into her phone when the verdict was read and then shouted something along the lines of 'guilty of male violence' to the courtroom. Again, I see her point but it probably doesn't help"

That would have been before the sentencing then Susan?

Yes probably not the wisest move

If it was after the verdict and the sentencing, I agree cromey. But if sentencing was still to made, well, she could have kept stum for 10 minutes surely.

Not criticising her words, of course, just possible timing?

No Julia shouted this after the verdict and sentencing, after everyone had left the court, outside the court.

Ok cromey, thanks

Will this happen when a woman is sexually assualted do you think? Is there anything in those guidelines to address that circumstance?

No, of course it has no relevance to the case or the sentence, but in terms of public perceptions, it might come across as six of one and half a dozen of the other. I do have a lot of admiration for Julia Long though and of course she can shout whatever she wants.

I am just conscious of the fact that had the judge totally sided with MM and thrown the book at TW, you can bet your life there would be an appeal looming with lots of lawyers willing to act pro bono for TW and lots of coverage and probably a retrial.

Will this happen when a woman is sexually assualted do you think? Is there anything in those guidelines to address that circumstance?

There's nothing in the Guidelines to cover that. As with everything transgender, the well-intentioned authors did not think through the implications. And we should emphasize again, this was part of the trend of making self-identification a fait accompli before anyone had a chance to debate it. How many people were consulted about this new rule in the Bench Book?

Couldn't you get round the pronouns issue by not using them at all? Just say 'the defendant' every time you need to refer to the defendant. Or would that be seen as contempt of court for not validating the identity of the defendant?

There's nothing in the Guidelines to cover that. As with everything transgender, the well-intentioned authors did not think through the implications.

Quite. As I said above, it's one thing for court officers, quite another for participants in criminal cases involving violence or sexual violence.

MacLachlan could have referred to "Tara Wolfe" or "Wolfe"A bit cumbersome but nothing to complain about.

Maria was told that she could use "the defendant" instead of "she".

But think of how stressful it is to be a witness in court, trying to give an accurate account of what happened 6 months earlierand now you also have to focus your attention on eschewing pronouns? It sounds like a 21st century version of Just a Minutewithout deviation, hesitation, or misgendering.

Pronouns are deeply embedded in our linguistic unconscious. I have a Chinese friend who has spoken English constantly for 20 years, but when he is a bit drunk or tired he'll start getting pronouns wrong--as Chinese doesn't distinguish him/her.

I am just conscious of the fact that had the judge totally sided with MM and thrown the book at TW, you can bet your life there would be an appeal looming with lots of lawyers willing to act pro bono for TW and lots of coverage and probably a retrial.

Sorry to butt in, I'm new to MN so apologies if I'm doing this all wrong.

Whist the idea of making a ruling "appeal proof" is true in the Crown Court and Civil Courts, there is an automatic right to appeal a conviction in the Mags. You don't need grounds or permission, and if you had legal aid in the Mags, you'll get it for the appeal.

I would not be in the least surprised if Wolf/Wood appeals.

Firstly, there are no court costs payable by the Appellant. It's free and simply involves filling in a form saying you want to appeal. As Wolf/Wood/Whatever was legally aided in the Mags, that would remain the case for the appeal.

The only financial implications are if the appeal is lost then the prosecution will apply for further costs on top of what were ordered in the Mags (£520 for an appeal conviction). It's within the court's discretion whether or not this is ordered to be paid and the amount.

Unlike with appeals from the Crown Court and appeals in civil matters, the judge being appealed from the Mags does not need to have erred in law (there is a specific procedure for when that happens called Stating a Case and it goes to the High Court - this is what happened with the term-time holidays case that was all over the news last year).

An appeal to the Crown Court is a complete re-hearing - so exactly what happened in the Mags but this time heard by a Crown Court judge sitting with two lay magistrates. So Wolf would run exactly the same defence - prevention of crime (the fear of being "doxxed") and defence of another.

As he seems to be viewing this case as great publicity for "the cause", I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he has a crack at an appeal.

TW did not plead guilty though so could surely appeal the conviction. TW did not admit to assault, they claimed self-defence/prevention of another offence. Maybe it won't happen, I don't know. But the job of the judge is to be even-handed and I think this judge was, given the circumstances. It would have been an outrage if he had accepted the self-defence argument, but he dismissed it completely. If we are talking in terms of winners and losers, TW is definitely the loser here and MM the winner. You can't win on absolutely everything.

Thanks Susan

and Felicicat

Is there the risk that the sentence might be more steep on appeal?

It's open to the Crown Court to increase sentence but it very rarely happens.

Ah interesting, Felicicat. I do hope for Maria's sake that she's not dragged through the process again.

Someone said on an earlier thread that the sentence was not unduly lenient for this level of offence, so he might think there's no downside to appealing.

TW admitted guilt during the proceeding by saying TW punched in self defense of their friend.

Was thinking about this, its not perjury because the sex of the defendant was not material in the case but the oath that one swears before testifying isn't "to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth (only if its material)".

As someone who specialises in contracts, all I'm coming up with is misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. I don't think it would rise to the charge of intimidating a witness.

How on earth would this work in a different case where sex is relevant. Would someone have to say that "woman raped me with her female penis"?

Forcing the overturning of objective reality, in law, and in a court of law (i.e. forced lying, really), is never going to end well. Especially when it is women at the sharp end of this. Again.

thebewilderness that is not an admission of guilt. If I kill someone and say it was self-defence and accept that I caused their death, that is not the same as me admitting to murder. In the case of TW they admitted punching in self-defence but not assaulting MM. If they appealed and there was a retrial, the court would need to consider the self-defence thing afresh.

I am not au fait with the legal aid rules but would TW automatically get legal aid for an appeal or do they at least have to show merits for an appeal (as is the case on the civil side)? If they have to show merit to get funding then a balanced judgment is a good thing- it really is.