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

Hi Nicola Williams, Fair Play For Women here. I'm at couart - here's what's happened.

Late submission by the defendant (sec of state for justice) and only seen by the claimants legal team 40 mins before the hearing started. It contains legal advice that the SoS was given before he approved the new trans policies. Some is redacted so they can’t disclose it to the court without getting permission as it is legally privileged. Defence barrister says the new submission could be relevant to the case and so will need to seek instructions from SoS about whether privilege can be waived and redacted information shown to court and defendants legal team. The judge was very reluctant to adjourn but there was no other option. The judge made an order for any necessary disclosure to happen by 6th December.

So in effect, the MOJ has messed up and means the JR will be delayed to at least until the new year. In the meantime the press are asking for court bundles and skeleton arguments to be made available. That decision will be made later.

Thank you Nic

Thanks Nicola. This must be beyond frustrating for you

@RedDogsBeg

Now I wonder why the usual suspects are not contributing to this thread.

😂

Can't thank you enough for all you're doing to fight for women Nicola. I hope that this isn't too dispiriting for all involved, especially the women at the centre if this.

Thank you Nicola for the update & all the work you are doing.

On twitter I saw a suggestion that other female prisoners might come forward. I think the claimant's barrister said it. Do you know what that was about? Could it end up with more claimants joining the case?

What possible advice could their be that can't be disclosed?

Hope this review gets the right response. Even mermaids admit there's no way these male prisoners were "born in the wrong body" so now that myth is well and truly busted, what possible rationale could there be for them being in a women's prison?! Just the government just hate women so much it's decided to sponsor males to rape us? I wish I was kidding.

Thank you Nic. So frustrating. I can't imagine what it's like actually being there.

Will get digging, furiously, to let off some steam.

Why is it redacted? What possible reason? So sorry for the women taking action and supporters.

Thank you Nicola - you and your colleagues are doing such great work, we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Thank you also for your work with World Rugby. You are shero through & through. 💪

@Aesopfable

What possible advice could their be that can't be disclosed?

That's what I want to know/can't understand.

The cynical me believes it is not the advice per se that is what they don't want known but who gave the advice, their background and qualifications and how far the tentacles of the advice giver extend into and compromise Government Departments and individuals.

@Aesopfable

What possible advice could their be that can't be disclosed?

Bad advice?

Thank you for everything you're doing Nicola

Thanks Nic.

Does this mean we now can't talk about this in any submissions to the new GRA inquiry? I noticed Maya Forstater had tweeted that the committee wouldn't accept comments on any matter that was currently before a court of law.

I hope the defendant will have to pay a lump of costs in relation to today.

(Taxpayers' money of course but still)

The cynical me believes it is not the advice per se that is what they don't want known but who gave the advice, their background and qualifications and how far the tentacles of the advice giver extend into and compromise Government Departments and individuals.

That sounds very plausible.

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.

@nevertrustaherdofcows

I hope the defendant will have to pay a lump of costs in relation to today.

(Taxpayers' money of course but still)

Yes costs for today were awarded to the Claimant.

@Floisme

Thanks Nic.

Does this mean we now can't talk about this in any submissions to the new GRA inquiry? I noticed Maya Forstater had tweeted that the committee wouldn't accept comments on any matter that was currently before a court of law.

This works both ways. The Committee is equally bound by the Sub Judice rules. www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/sub-judice/

They should not be doing anything that might be seen as an attempt to influence a current case. They will have to tread very carefully given how many cases there are. The timing of this call may be problematic for them too.

@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.

Thanks for the explanation Chaz.

Bad advice?

But if they simply thought it was bad advice then they wouldn’t have used it - it was the defendant (SoS) that put it forward to support their case wasn’t it?

And if they thought it was good advice the why not use it in court to explain why they are right?

Just to clarify Sub Judice and Parliamentary Privilege are complex areas and so the existence of so many relevant cases may create problems even if the the MP’s feel they argue Parliamentary Privilege. It would be potentially be problematic if they were to come to any conclusion that could be construed as an attempt to influence a live case. The rule may also act to block any debate on their findings. You really need an expert on Erskine May on this.

Just a reminder that I did post upthread here that I would start a new thread to focus on the court case as not many women would know about it if tagged on here.

The fact that it got derailed is as much to do with being taken in and responding to trolls! By the end of last night I was all for starting another thread. But as it turns out the case is now adjourned. Have pasted into that thread the interesting comment from Keep Prisons Single Sex.