GRC for transwoman with illegal explosives conviction

[Mumsnut]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6281853/Father-seven-convict-gender-change-recognised-High-Court.html

Don't know if the conviction was terrorism related, but I hope it will remain visible to those who need to know about it now that this person's identity can legally change.

I find it difficult to accept that a judge knows better than a medical panel, however.

You'd certainly think that there would be security implications for anyone convicted of explosives and other terrorist offences to be able to get a GRC, hide their past and then get new female documents and live under a new identity.

But hey the government has got this, right?

No need to worry that terrorists would abuse a system with no gatekeeping.

What a bizarre case!

Nothing concerning here at all.

So this person will now be transferred to a women’s prison ?

They are out of prison, on license, SirVixofVixHall.

Oh, thanks.
So doesn’t the GRC provide some level of identity cover, the right to be forgotten or something ?

This person was released in 2015, SirVix. Unless they have been convicted of further offences of course.

But they will presumably now sue the government for not putting them in a women's prison in the first place.

Their argument is that a GRC requirement is two years living in role. And the authorities don't count living in role as wearing the wig and the fake boobs while in the male estate. So they say they have to be transferred to the female estate so that they can live in role for the two years and if they aren't, that's a human rights infraction.

Because of course, the numpties who drafted the GRA couldn't possibly foresee this happening and legislate to prevent it, even though they have decades upon decades showing that cross dressing is the most common paraphilia among sex offenders.

Doesn't everyone feel extremely feminine when dealing in illegal explosives? No? Maybe just me then?

Kill me now, Im having another rock bottom moment with all of this.

I know it's missing the point, but I'm surprised that a father of seven could convince a panel that they have gender dysphoria.

I don't think they did convince the GR panel. They appealed against the refusal to be given a GRC, Lord Justice Baker overturned the decision and issued the GRC on the grounds that they had difficulty complying with the requirements on the basis of them being a prisoner 🙄.

Ah, thanks. I miss read the article. I think it might be because I thought someone needed to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria to get a GRC.

I'm just...really...what?

How in heck is any of this happening? Total disbelief moment here.

link to the full judgement

Will have a proper read later.

The person was represented by Claire McCann. She spoke in favour of self-ID at the Women's Equality Party conference this year.

Claire McCann is also representing the transgender person who is seeking to remove sexual crimes committed as a man from his record.

James Barrett, from the London Gender Clinic in 2014:

"If collateral corroboration is not convincingly elicited I would have grave doubts and wonder whether [Ms Jay]’s somewhat dependent personality had caused her to unwisely latch onto a change of gender role as a seemingly universal solution to both why her life had gone wrong and how it might be rectified.”

"On 20 June 2015, Ms Jay was recalled to prison. On 2 July 2015, she filed her second application to the Gender Recognition Panel. On this application, she identified 18 December 2008 as being the date from which she could provide evidence that she had lived full time in her acquired gender. She identified two doctors to provide the reports required by s.3(1) – her GP and a “gender specialist” called Dr Helen Webberly. She enclosed a copy of the further statutory declaration signed in March 2015. On 11 July 2015, Ms Jay wrote again to the panel complaining that she felt discriminated against and stating that the process was unfair to prisoners who were unable to gather all the information required. On 27 July, her GP submitted a medical report in the pro forma for gender recognition under the GRA. She ticked the box indicating that Ms Jay had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or a gender-related disorder. She set out information from Ms Jay’s medical records."

Very interesting. Got to have dinner now but will update later.

Have to say, I’ve skim read the judgement. Seems fine to me. Evidently a bit of a nightmare with the panel requesting all sorts of docs that the appellant couldn’t initially produce, practical difficulties as she was in prison, all sorts of directions, but in the end they had enough evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements. There is a statutory right of appeal to a court from the decision of the panel, and that appeal was made on judicial review type grounds - eg the panel taking into account irrelevant issues. The statute also provides that on appeal, the court has the power to order a GRC, which it did. The process is meant to be facilitative not restrictive, and the panel should not second guess a diagnosis of gender dysphoria made by a Doctor of sufficient expertise in the area.

Wow, women are committing a lot of crimes lately aren't they?

What could possibly go wrong, part 4645756878768.

How many actual females have a conviction for possession of illegal explosives? Now how many males?

I know it's missing the point, but I'm surprised that a father of seven could convince a panel that they have gender dysphoria.

Ending up with 7 children seems surprising if one isn't fond of one's penis or one's sexual role as a male.

Well colour me surprised to see Helen Webberley involved here!

It seems the applicant applies for a GRC three times and was refused each time. The first time, when asked to produce evidence of gender dysphoria, the best she could come up with was the letter from Dr Barrett saying he was sceptical about it. When rejecting her for the third time, the panel referred back to this and also to the fact that another medical report submitted was incomplete. But the judge decided that a number of different doctors have now agreed that the applicant is dysphoric and that the panel had no discretion to secondguess that.

Okay read most of it.

Bloke is in and out of prison. Married 3 times, 7 children. History of severe psychiatric problems, self-harm and personality disorder.

Sued the prison service for negligence before any of the gender stuff surfaced.

Claims to have lived as a woman since 2008 but only started the process to get a GRC when in prison in 2011.

Doctors would not give a diagnosis of gender dysphoria so this person shopped around for a doctor to give the diagnosis. Got it from Webberly and their own GP (who they had only just met, it seems) said that it looked like this person intended to live as a woman. This person later met with another doctor once who did an assessment with no medical notes of this person's psychiatric history and seemingly no knowledge of their time in jail. This doctor did give a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but it was rejected by the panel because the assessment was incomplete.

This person kept getting rejected by the panel because of missing evidence, assessments and identity documents being in a male name. Also wouldn't give the panel current addresses or GP details.

"On 10 November 2017, she was recalled to prison whilst on licence again and at the time of the hearing before me was still in custody."

So when incarcerated again, this person was assessed yet again by another doctor who did give a diagnosis of dysphoria.

Given that this person is currently in custody, this person will be transferred to a women's prison now. Still has the penis.

Bex Stinson (Stonewall) speaking on Woman’s Hour this morning said that there was no right of appeal to the decisions of a GRC panel. So how does this person get a panel’s decision overturned by a judge?