Judicial review for woman prisoner alleging sexual assault by trans rapist in prison

[realitycalling]

The Sunday Times reporting a long overdue judicial review after an (alleged) sexual assault on a woman prisoner by a male born trans rapist who had been placed in a female prison. (trying to be careful with language given the oppressive monitors who try to control this board).

And they've reported on the Centre Parks issue as well as a prominent article about that major brands like Unilever and Heinz advertising on Pornhub that's awash with child sex abuse. Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/female-prisoner-takes-government-to-court-after-alleged-assault-by-transgender-inmate-n5wtg2nf7?shareToken=f2e99b28b2f234eb7e84b0c4484e7254

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Legal advice is usually privileged so you don’t have to disclose it in court. This is normal and is to protect people’s right to take advice. However, you can elect to waive privilege. My understanding is that it is relevant here because that advice may directly affect the law / guidance given by the State.

Does that only apply if the legal advice is given by a qualified lawyer? What if it's largely by a lobby group, for instance.

It’s only a lawyer. Lobby groups would not be covered.

Sorry to see this delay. Very frustrating.

I wonder if Frances Crook will have any comments or views on this JR.

It puzzles me that certain lobby groups get loads of tax payers' money and lottery money, but groups fighting for women's rights get nothing.

I can understand why a private citizen might need the option to have evidence they present to court redacted, but how on earth can it be allowed for the SoS, in their official capacity? This isn't exactly a matter of national security.

The public needs to know how the hell we ended up with men in women's prisons!

@MichelleofzeResistance

This is why the govt hate judicial reviews.

Accountability. They'd much prefer there wasn't any.

Indeed. Best enjoy them while we can.

In my experience legal advice is never simply 100 per cent for one approach, it will refer to risks both ways. I imagine that the advice could not in any way come down in favour as it's not legal so by showing all the advice it's obvious someone made a choice whilst knowing the risk to women. I guess there is some frantic argument going on now as that person seeks to claim parliamentary privilege and avoid being exposed for the decision.

The redacted evidence is not unusual in a court situation. There are good reasons why privilege exists. I am extremely curious to know what the advice was. I am tending towards cock up rather than conspiracy in terms of the late submission. It was never going to make the case go away. There is no reason to think that the civil servants at the MoJ we’re aware of the Select Committee plans. More likely they were running around on Brexit stuff and dropped the ball.
Doesn’t stop it being annoying and frustrating for the women at risk.

@caughtalightsneeze it’s a typo - it should be “Barney Castle” not “Bally Castle” although it’s more usual for Barnard Castle to be shortened further - to just “Barney”.