Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

2009 case of a judge ordering an intact male rapist into a female prison because he had a GRC

69 replies

Barracker · 19/09/2018 23:33

In another thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370578-House-of-Commons-report-on-Trans-Prisoners-Published-today?watched=1&msgid=81156014#81156014
there is a link to a report published today about trans prisoners.
There's a reference in that report to this court case R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for Justice and another (2009).

Read it, and gnash your teeth at the horror that the GRA 2004 created for women.

Key points of the case:

  1. Male, 27, imprisoned for life. Was sentenced to an automatic “two strikes” life sentence for offences, committed while a man, of manslaughter and attempted rape.
  2. Fully intact male genitalia.
  3. Even in the male prison he was segregated from the MALE population for safety
  4. He had been GRANTED a GRC. The panel were 'satisfied' that he had lived for two years 'in role as a woman'
  5. He was seeking gender reassignment surgery; however, the gender identity clinic treating him would not approve gender reassignment surgery until he had spent a period living “in role” as a woman in a female prison
  6. The original decision was made NOT to transfer him: "The claimant applied on several occasions to the defendant secretary of state for justice for transfer to a general female estate (not segregated). The secretary of state refused the transfer. The reasons given were, inter alia, the risk that the claimant posed to women given that she still possessed male genitalia, and the potential cost of segregation."
  7. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal. His lawyers argued that according to the GRA under s 9 that a person was “for all purposes” of the acquired gender. Penis notwithstanding.
  8. The defence (the secretary of state which had denied the transfer) argued that s9 of the GRA didn't mean we should have to ignore a man's penis or the consequences of it, like the costs of having to segregate him from women to keep them safe if he was transferred.
  9. His Lordship had this to say (in so many words)
10. Ok, so I won't force people to ignore the fact that this 'woman' has a penis. You can take the penis into account only insofar as it has an effect on your responsibility to the other prisoners. 11. However, this 'woman' is currently in a male prison, and should be treated exactly as you would theoretically treat any biological woman in a male prison. Regarding matters of external appearance, such as clothes and cosmetics his rights to those are being impinged. (Not kidding on this) 12. Also, keeping him in a male prison barred his ability to qualify for surgery, thanks to the gender identity clinic insisting that he had to be transferred to get it. His Lordship decided that interfered with his personal autonomy too much. 13. There was also a dollop of "we all agree he offends partly because he wants to be a woman so much" and "if we don't transfer him to the women's estate his risk profile will probably get worse" 14. It was concluded that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the effect of continued detention of the rapist in a male prison. The original refusal to put him in with the women was held to have breached the rapist's rights under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). 15. So the transfer was then approved.

The end.

TL;DR
A genitally intact male rapist/man slaughterer with a life sentence was transferred to a women's prison despite an attempt by the Secretary of State to block it because:
A. The GRA had made him legally female
B. A gender identity clinic said he couldn't get his penis removed until he'd lived with it in a female prison for two years first
C. It was very mean to not let him have lipstick and dresses in male prison
D. If we didn't let him move he'd probably be much nastier than he already was
E. His rights were being breached.

#RepealTheGRA

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 20/09/2018 10:47

I feel like such an idiot, how was this shit happening so long ago but I didn't even wake up to the problem until a few years ago.

2013 Guardian article describing how Press for Change was formed and its influence:

(extract)

"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says [Christine] Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press"

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Ana86 · 20/09/2018 11:02

Yep, literally exploited immediately by a violent male sex offender. Whoever could have seen that coming.

Well I wondered that too so I went back to the original Parliamentary debates on the GRA and all I could find was this exchange:

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) ... may I ask the Minister about another practical implication of the Bill? Will prisoners be liable to apply for a gender change certificate if they started that exercise before they became prisoners? If so and they are granted a certificate, what will be the accommodation arrangements for that prisoner? Will he or she have to be moved, or is this something else that the Government need to think about but have not, as with pension rights?

Mr. Lammy Prisoners can apply and that person will be subject to prison arrangements for their new acquired gender. We are talking about a very small group of people and the hon. Gentleman knows that that situation would arise in limited circumstances.

As far as I can see that is the point where it's reference and it looks as if David Lammy essentially sees Tim Loughton as raising a niche and irrelevant point to try to derail the Act rather than an important issue that needed thought.

here there are other debates on it too.

TheCuriousMonkey · 20/09/2018 11:04

I'm just about to sit down with a cup of coffee and read the judgment (here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2220.html for any legal nerds).

WTF was Lord Patel thinking inviting this individual to the House of Lords? Can anyone imagine a member of the House of Lords posing in a photo with a woman (the kind with a vagina) who had committed serious violent crimes? Thought not.

R0wantrees · 20/09/2018 11:19

January 2018 Karen Lawson in PN:
"I hold down a full-time job, I live up in Leeds now, and I’m happy and confident because it’s all I’ve ever wanted. I might have gone around things the wrong way, but to me I felt isolated. I’ve come a long way since then.

I’m a manager, which is a big achievement of its own. I do a lot with the LGBT community in Leeds, and it’s nice to just to bounce around the street and no one actually judges you. In the prison estate, it’s the prison grapevine, so people hear, and you never blend in fully.

Thankfully, I transitioned quite well, so it’s like I can bounce around the estate and someone can say “that’s another butch lesbian,” which is exactly what I am. The prison estate has come a long way now, and I know I did impact on that with my high court case, but there’s still a long way to come. "

Spetember 2018 Times:
"Karen White, 52, a former drag artist from Manchester previously known as Stephen Wood, then David Thompson, claimed to be transgender to the authorities. Despite knowing that White had undergone no physical changes and was a paedophile on remand for multiple rapes with a long record of sexual and violent offences against women, the authorities permitted a transfer to HMP New Hall, a prison near Wakefield with a mother-and-baby unit. White committed the assaults within days of the move and was transferred back to a men’s prison." (continues)
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapist-karen-white-in-women-s-jail-was-trans-faker-lbcwjp8jc

Janice Turner: 'Trans rapists are a danger in women’s jails
As the case of Karen White has proved, putting male-born sex offenders among female inmates is naive and reckless'
(extract)
"The prison authorities knew a great deal about Karen White. That under her birth name Stephen Wood she’d served 18 months for gross indecency against a child; that she was on remand for three rapes also committed as a man; that, although she wore dresses and make-up, she’d retained male genitalia. Yet still they put her in a women’s jail.

I’d love to meet those who signed off this decision. What would they say to the four women who, within days of her transfer to New Hall prison in West Yorkshire, White had sexually assaulted? Confining a rapist in a women’s prison, among vulnerable inmates including rape victims, is like locking a fox in a henhouse. Yet they merely followed government guidelines “that prisoners should generally be housed in the estate that matches their expressed gender”.

On Thursday, after White admitted the three rapes and two of the prison assaults — one in which “her [sic] penis was sticking out of the top of her trousers” — the Ministry of Justice apologised, saying it failed to take into account her offending history. But her crimes were right there on file. Rather, the case illustrates a principle now hard-baked into schools, prisons and across the public sector: that women’s physical safety is less important than “gender expression”. (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-rapists-are-a-danger-in-women-s-jails-5vhgh57pt

BiologyIsReal · 20/09/2018 11:20

Perhaps Tim Loughton (if anyone is in his constituency) should be made aware of this, if he isn't already. Sounds like a 'told you so' moment for him even though he put it in the form of a question.

MagicMix · 20/09/2018 11:26

We are talking about a very small group of people and the hon. Gentleman knows that that situation would arise in limited circumstances.

Christ. Shall we create a loophole allowing violent men access to vulnerable women? Yeah sure, probably only a handful will use it so who cares really.

MagicMix · 20/09/2018 11:28

Enormous thanks to everyone here on this thread and others who has done the work of digging all this up. It is illuminating. Horrifying, but illuminating.

silentcrow · 20/09/2018 11:29

The GIC that insisted he MUST live in the women's estate to fulfil 'living as a woman' to get SRS was Charing Cross. James Barrett was key in insisting this murderous rapist be placed with women.

Thank you, Barracker. Another name to be aware of - and check the funding of.

Barracker · 20/09/2018 11:39

For thse who missed it, Rowantrees' post references two different prisoners

both male
both rapists
both intact
both moved to women's prison
both called 'Karen'

Easy to get your transgender male intact rapists in women's prisons confused when there are enough of them that you start having duplicate names. Hope that helps.

OP posts:
nauticant · 20/09/2018 11:40

Having confused myself about this earlier, I'll just say that as far as I can tell Karen Lawson and Karen White are different people.

nauticant · 20/09/2018 11:41

Ha, cross-post. Glad someone else is also keen to avoid confusion.

R0wantrees · 20/09/2018 11:41

Thanks Barracker, I had intended to bold the surnames.

R0wantrees · 20/09/2018 11:48

James Barrett also interviewed in the 2013 Guardian article linked previously and would seem to be opposed to the proposed changes for gender self id?

"James Barrett is the lead clinician at the Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic, the largest and oldest in the world, which receives 1,400 NHS patients a year, a figure that is doubling every five years. About one in five referrals end up having genital surgery. The media is obsessed with stories of regret; in fact, post-operative trans people wanting to return to their original sex are "vanishingly rare", says Barrett. Of the 6,000 or so NHS patients he has seen over 25 years, just two have permanently reverted to their original gender role. Barrett understands some trans people's frustration with the glacial pace of gaining access to surgery but says if it was made easier – or the selection processes less stringent – there might be proportionally many more regrets.

Barrett admits his work is not well regarded among many health professionals and is critical of some GPs who treat trans people. "It's not a majority, but it's an extremely substantial minority" he says of GPs who are reluctant to refer patients on to identity clinics, or are unwilling to prescribe the hormones they will need for the rest of their life when guided by consultants at a specialist NHS clinic. "We have persistent problems with GPs who won't prescribe for patients even though to do so is safe," he says. (A Dutch study found mortality rates among treated trans people no higher than anyone else; Barrett's clinic's oldest former patient is 92.) In fact, says Barrett, it seems that some GPs are prejudiced or ill-informed: one stated it was against her Christian beliefs to prescribe hormones; another recently insisted no such treatment was available on the NHS.

"This is a group who are somehow not taken seriously. They are a bit like Gypsies, whom it still seems OK to make racist jokes about," says Barrett. "It seems to be thought comedic to make cruel jokes about them. Nobody would make Dick Emery-type jokes about gay people now. This isn't a pantomime. These are real people with real lives."

Barrett understands the potential controversies inherent in trans people asking for medical help paid by the taxpayer but insists that people who have gender reassignment surgery subsequently contribute far more to society than they ask of the NHS. For example, they earn more after surgery. "If you work out how much more they pay in taxes, they fund their own treatment and then some. If you don't treat people, they tend to be really miserable and off work and on sickness benefits and in hospital and then they cost the taxpayer, when they could be net contributors in financial and social terms." (continues)

"In 25 years, Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet." (continues)

Ekphrasis · 20/09/2018 15:56

Just when I think I couldn't be peaked any further.

Fucking hell.

seafret · 20/09/2018 21:47

Yep, peak peaking. I had forgotten that I had read the fuller judgement. It is almost unbelievable :(

among peers FFS. Did anyone ask the other women?

Barrett's women like that. Words fail me

but [The Claimant] needs to control the threatening external world by imposing her own order and when this is not possible she resorts to stronger measures which incorporate narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic elements. ...
... As [the Claimant's] desperation to control her environment mounts, she experiences a heightening degree of narcissism or self-concern. She is increasingly liable to experience aggressive and destructive impulses.

Can we just read that again slowly..

And so you just gave them what they wanted and hoped it would work?

But that women who get upset with a male murderer and attempted rapist in their spaces aren't legitimately upset, nor entitled to any collusion to calm their symptoms as White is. Those sort of women who enjoy conflict have to be taught a lesson.

No wonder Barrett could be so certain that the women in the prison would just quietly acquiese - just a matter of time. Yes, well. You can smell the danger coming off someone like that.

Barrett's 'cure' was to enable and empower a mentally unstable killer and violent attempted rapist.

But what happens if Jones is ever seriously challenged again? This is the real reason I think for advocating unquestioning affirmation - to hide that the fact that being challenged provokes/ unleashes the raging beast inside.

Ereshkigal · 20/09/2018 22:58

but [The Claimant] needs to control the threatening external world by imposing her own order and when this is not possible she resorts to stronger measures which incorporate narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic elements. ...

Words fail me.

Turph · 20/09/2018 23:41

This is seriously disturbing. Nobody in a decision making role here can claim ignorance of the facts. Thank you all for the research, it really is galling to see it all in one place. Not in any way surprised about Lammy, he has previous for failing to consider implications.

FloralBunting · 20/09/2018 23:46

I shared a lot of this with BuntingJunior today. She is hopping mad. This is why I'm getting actively involved in feminist activism. This is absolutely untenable.

OldCrone · 20/09/2018 23:54

but [The Claimant] needs to control the threatening external world by imposing her own order and when this is not possible she resorts to stronger measures which incorporate narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic elements. ...

Surely the right place for someone like this is Broadmoor, not a women's prison.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page