Mail article - Judges are ordered to allow transgender defendants to be addressed as the gender of their choice during court appearances

[EweSurname]

This was published in the Mail yesterday, but not sure when the new guidelines for judges were released.

We’ve seen this in action already with Maria being compelled to use mis-sexed pronouns but it’s being formalised by guidelines.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7047897/Judges-ordered-allow-transgender-defendants-addressed-gender-choice.html

New guidelines state that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ and courts should respect a person’s gender identity by using appropriate names and pronouns.

The rules, published in a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, say courts should not reveal a defendant’s birth gender and that in ‘rare’ cases where disclosing a previous sex is necessary, judges should take the court into secret session or impose reporting restrictions.

Do we have a birth gender? Is it different from our sex at birth? If so, who decides it and how?

I think the victim should be able to ask to give their testimony in their own words, and that a court clerk write it down and change the pronouns afterwards.

Like another poster above, I couldn't cope on the fly with trying to use declaredgenderwrongsex pronouns throughout.

I think the victim should be able to ask to give their testimony in their own words, and that a court clerk write it down and change the pronouns afterwards.

I think the victim should use uncensored language that remains unaltered. I think changing it afterwards is conceding too much.

Lizzie - it’s a good preface to highlight to the possibly-unaware judge why this might be a problem, but I’m still stuck on why the eff women should have to.

Surely a person’s perception of a defendant is relevant to their evidence on the whole, ie if there’s any doubt they have the right person? If you’re verbally struggling or stuttering over pronouns you’re going to look like you don’t have a clear recollection of what happened and will be treated as a less credible witness. It’s intimidating enough to give evidence in court, particularly in cases of rape and sexual assault, without putting up this barrier.

Kaitlin - I think ones birth gender used to be included in the Bounty bags.

Dodo - no, that would be a legal and political nightmare. Allowing a court official to re-write a witness statement would totally, and I really mean totally, undermine the freedom and independence of our judicial system.

I can't stress strongly enough the extent to which this would undermine the principles of a free and fair judicial system. I do not use these words lightly because I know how many people died under these regimes, but this really would be sleepwalking into a Stalinist/Maoist nightmare.

Kaitlin - I think ones birth gender used to be included in the Bounty bags.

Snort.

Surely the Law Lords, or whatever senior organisation exists in law, need to have a good look at this now and think seriously about how it conflicts in court with the requirement and oath to tell the truth.

When this attack took place, the defendant presented to me as male, they were dresses as a male, had male biology, spoke as a male, and attacked me as a male can only do. I have thought about this attack for many hours since it happened, I always think of the defendant as male. I am very concerned, under the present rules, that I will 'misgender' the defendant, therefore I am afraid to speak. Can the judge advise me as to how to proceed with telling the truth, without getting into trouble myself.
^^ THIS

This conflict with reality is now affecting the whole set-up of Law, Education, Medicine. It is not just a few 'terfs' complaining any more. Consent to rule by law is the bedrock of any society.

It isn't clear to me whether the obligation would apply only to officers of the court or whether it would also apply to witness testimony.

I believe that the rules in place for the trial of Tara Wolf should have had applicability only for the officers of the court and the judge was mistaken in seeking to apply them to Maria Maclachlan.

So I'm unsure. But this is also worrying:

The rules, published in a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, say courts should not reveal a defendant’s birth gender and that in ‘rare’ cases where disclosing a previous sex is necessary, judges should take the court into secret session or impose reporting restrictions.

do we have the actual source document for this article? Googling has brought up a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book from Feb 2018, but that's it.

It's of course contradictory but has some good stuff in it which would allow judges to circumvent some of this nonsense (my bold):

15. A person’s gender at birth or their transgender history should not be disclosed unless it is necessary and relevant to the particular legal proceedings. Where a person has applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 specifically applies to such disclosure. Further details on this important issue are set out in the next section.

16. Disclosure of gender assigned at birth may be essential, but this will be rare. It will usually be possible to accept a person’s legal gender, or their gender identity, for court and tribunal purposes without further inquiry. Further inquiries may not only be intrusive and offensive, but could breach rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private life), which arguably means that the disclosure would need to be relevant and necessary for the proper disposal of the legal proceedings.

17. Where appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice, the court may consider making reporting restrictions under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent the disclosure of a transgender person’s previous name and transgender history, or it may direct a private hearing.

18. It is inappropriate to enquire about, or refer to a transgender person’s medical history, including their anatomical status, unless it is legally relevant to the case at hand, and then this issue should be handled with utmost sensitivity and respect for a person’s private life. Again, a private hearing might be directed where appropriate.

WeepingWillow - thank you for the calm analysis. There are two issues shown up there though - one is that there is a clear admission there that there has to be exemptions, which so far are not being admitted to in political culture. Less politically sharp organisations everywhere are submitting to bullying tactics and throwing women under buses. The second is, how will those exemptions be held up in practice? The op mentioned how Maria was compelled in court to lie.

It is inappropriate to enquire about, or refer to a transgender person’s medical history, including their anatomical status, unless it is legally relevant to the case at hand, and then this issue should be handled with utmost sensitivity and respect for a person’s private life. Again, a private hearing might be directed where appropriate.

Would a private hearing mean the press couldn't report on it? Would that have an impact on a fair trial if witnesses and any other possible victims didn't know about the trial?

Dark yes, I agree making people lie in court is appalling. And the rights of trans people are being allowed to trump all (though I didn't read the whole document).

What I would like to know, though, is what the DM are reporting on, because this is not new.

I know the DM are gender critical, but they are also the DM and as such I'm treating this story cautiously.

I also have doubts about this being a radical new departure. To my mind the immediate concern is that this guidelines are being introduced in a climate of uncertainty where many in authority don't know what they're supposed to do, and as a result the guidelines are being misapplied.

One area that could be worked on is providing sensible training to those in authority. However, as we're seeing all over the shop now, that aspect has been overrun and captured by fringe groups who are gleefully misinterpreting guidelines and laws and spreading misinformation.

So you have to swear an oath to speak the truth but are not allowed to speak the truth - yes some great TRA/AWA logic there.

It would be lying in court when one had promised to tell the truth.

Fair enough. Scrap that as an idea then. If it ever comes up I'll be shit at remembering to mis-sex people though.

Excuse the language but this is one major mind f*ck. I've signed petitions etc but this may be the hill. How to completely undermine the judiciary. She repeatedly exposed her penis on the Clapham Omnibus.

It seems the court would be demanding a witness commit perjury, if perjury is lying under oath (which is what I understand it to be).

It can't be stated enough what the cognitive load is on someone when they're forced to lie.

There's a daft gameshow on CBBC where kids and their parents are asked to give the wrong answer to questions eg "the sky is green" "true", "the earth is round" "false" "dogs have five legs" "true".

Confronted with three quick fire statements like this in front of a studio audience, very few people can actually do all three.

Now imagine you're effectively being asked to do this on the witness stand in court, reliving traumatic events while subject to hostile cross examination by a defence barrister with the threat of contempt of court hanging over your head if you can't stick to the arbitrary and insane rules.

No one could manage that convincingly, even when they were telling the truth.

Surely the witness should just say what they saw and experienced? To have to use the defendants preferred pronouns if nothing else assumes that it was definitely the defendant involved and there could be no mistaken identity.

Do they also have to say eg. a women approached them even though it was clearly a man?

"A very masculine looking person approached and flashed her penis at me your honor" 😕

*a very masculine looking person that looked like the defendent without a wig

I am autistic and my brain cannot process the cognitive dissonance. I just would not have been able to speak.

yup.

Racist
Disablist
Homophobic
Sexist
Misogynistic
Anti freedom of belief

To 'include' the trans ideology is to exclude a hell of a lot of non trans people with protected characteristics. It will not have been equality impact tested, it is a parachuted in policy based on self ID being slid in by stealth on the advice of government funded political lobby groups. Against national policy on political impartiality of law, police, justice, you know, huge civil rights issues like that.

This country has become a fucking joke.