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

Update. Not sure what thread we should be on

Reconvening ....

I bet they won't allow it.

Reading the FPFW thread it comes across to me as an arse covering, not me Guv stance on the part of either, or both, the MOJ and SSJ.

Fair play for women, object, and keep prisons single sex (no xy in xx prisons) are all live tweeting so it's quite useful to watch them all to get a full picture. No Xy is the most detailed.

Karon Monoghan is barrister for claimant. I think that's really good if you Google her to see how significant she is in the world of equality & discrimination law. She wrote the book on it.

I think what's happening is:
Defence didn't supply evidence of the legal advice that the minister used to make decision (& maybe other docs) until 40 mins before case. Claimant has asked for time to look at it properly. Defence say some is privileged (not clear in what way) & minister hasn't had time to waive privilege. Judges say they don't need to see the advice to decide if the actions taken were lawful.
I think what advice was given will only become relevant if judges do decide that decisions were unlawful, but maybe not even then.

@Manderleyagain

Fair play for women, object, and keep prisons single sex (no xy in xx prisons) are all live tweeting so it's quite useful to watch them all to get a full picture. No Xy is the most detailed.

Karon Monoghan is barrister for claimant. I think that's really good if you Google her to see how significant she is in the world of equality & discrimination law. She wrote the book on it.

I think what's happening is:
Defence didn't supply evidence of the legal advice that the minister used to make decision (& maybe other docs) until 40 mins before case. Claimant has asked for time to look at it properly. Defence say some is privileged (not clear in what way) & minister hasn't had time to waive privilege. Judges say they don't need to see the advice to decide if the actions taken were lawful.
I think what advice was given will only become relevant if judges do decide that decisions were unlawful, but maybe not even then.

So we've got this damning and incriminating information, but we're submitting it late so you have only seconds to read it, even though it's the crux of the argument, and anyway, we are hellbent on it not being made public.

Okaaay?

For fuck's sake.

Yes it looks suspiciously like a way of keeping the advice & some of the decision making process out of public domain to me, but I do usually go with cock up rather than conspiracy. If they really wanted to keep it hidden I think they'd make the case for privilege.

But I guess the judge thinks the case is about if the decision was illegal, not why it was made.

The hashtag to follow is #womenprisonjr

If the argument from the SSJ/Government is that they were given and followed incorrect legal advice why don't they just own up to that and formally agree within the Court that they will now implement the correct legal position.

SSJ/Government can deal with those who gave the incorrect advice separately.

Tweet

You and I paid for that advice. I want to know what it is.

It's not like it's an issue of national security, is it?

Unless you have some experience of the prison system, it is entirely impossible to imagine the total absence of control within in our prisons. And this means they do not, and cannot, protect vulnerable people. Given that a large proportion of the prisoners (of either sex) are vulnerable through deprived upbringings, lack of literacy, and mental health problems, this means that the population within the prisons is open to abuse day in and day out.

The prisons are run by the drug barons - really, I promise you this is true. I have a very dear, but mentally and physically damaged, adopted relative in a prison where the authorities openly admit that they cannot protect that person from being sold drugs and being beaten up if payment is not forthcoming. Their attitude is that this person should request a move to another wing ("Like everyone else does") - the idea of protecting that person in the first place seems to have escaped their twisted logic.

No prisoners are safe; and there is no way that a transgender rapist in a women's prison will be sufficiently monitored to make the women safe. The whole system is broken and in disarray.

The mass of mentally ill and damaged people in our prisons says something about our mental health services and welfare systems. Something of which I feel ashamed.

Mischance thanks for your insight. Your poor relative & the people who love and worry about them.

Reddogsbed no the argument from the government is that the policy is lawful. That's why they are defending it.

I find the statement from the Defence Barrister to the Claimant's Barrister that the redacted parts are relevant but I can't tell you what they are utterly chilling.

This is our Government, our taxes, we have a right to know on what basis they decided the female population in prison were expendable.

They are going to wriggle like crazy to stop the Press viewing the Court Bundles, they know they will be slaughtered. As I said earlier their best bet is to admit they were wrong and undertake formally to immediately right the wrong.

the redacted parts are relevant but I can't tell you what they are

How the fuck is this supposed to work? Laws can't be built on 'because I say so', and especially not when that comes with 'and I wont' tell you why or who told me to say that'.

Hoping that it's not too long to get this sorted - unfair to drag it out like this.

Manderleyagain I thought the Defence were arguing that the legal advice on which the policy was based was incorrect, but they can't show that advice due to privilege?

How long is the adjournment likely to be? I have no knowledge of these things. A day? A week? Four months?

This is why the govt hate judicial reviews.

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

I believe that the govt/defence were saying it's correct but they can't/won't share it? Which is risible.

Does anyone know if the claimant is still in prison? This will cause her stress regardless but I would argue that delaying this even further would contribute further to that. Poor woman.

@MichelleofzeResistance

This is why the govt hate judicial reviews.

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

Judging by the cases brought in recent times the Government never comes out well, their advice always seems to be lousy, their legal teams seem less than impressive. The taxpayers are funding this crap advice and the legal teams defending it.

They don't like the accountablity, the fact that the Public paying for them see how incompetent they are, no wonder there are moves afoot to stop/limit JRs.

The public have a right to know who the Government are paying for advice and what that advice is.

And if anyone in government bothered to check whether the advice was actually correct and compatible with current law so they didn't get caught with their pants down, looking like a bunch of unprofessional nitwits.

Rather like no one in the equalities (hollow laugh) committee office seems to have bothered to proof read the inquiry release.

Reddogsbed I don't know for sure. If the defecce say the advice was incorrect they will be arguing that somehow it led them to a lawful policy, because they haven't reversed the policy and are defending it in court so must be claiming it's lawful.