MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

I have seen quite a few ppl on here & twitter saying that the prison policy is against the Geneva conventions. Those only relate to armed conflict so are not applicable. But international human rights law is relevant & it's v interesting that monaghan has cited this.

Re Geneva Convention comparison, I was thinking more along the lines that if sex segregation can be a legitimate and proportionate requirement during wartime, arguably the worst of times, then in peacetime, where there are no extreme circumstances how can they argue that it is ok for women to be treated worse?

Obviously much better that Karen is using human rights law that actually applies in this case but the Geneva Convention comparison makes quite a stark point about the approach of the MoJ here.

Are GRC's actively recorded? Defence counsel says No. The reason is its a breach of Section 22 of GRA2004. There is NO centralised list kept. /11

Justice H says surely prison needs to know who has a GRC for their policies to work. Counsel says its possible a prisoner may have a GRC without prison knowing. Prison only knows if the trans person discloses /12

Justice Swift: Therefore the policy only covers prisoners who acquire a GRC in prison. There's no way to know if someone has a GRC before they go to prison. /13

Defence counsel - there's no way to know if someone has a GRC and there are not many of them. The policy adequately covers most trans people who do not gave a GRC or who disclose they have. /14

FPFW commentary
(the implication here is that some male-born prisoners will get into women's prison without a risk assessment being done - because they don-t have to disclose they have a GRC - this is the big problem with privacy protections in the GRA2004!) /15

Further FPFW commentary
This case is showing us how in practice someone with a GRC is treated differently to someone without a GRC - the GRC is considered to have more weight - there needs to be more of a reason to exclude them. This is one of the main arguments we make against self-ID /16

What a can of worms.

Commentary
Supporters of GRA Self-ID say that having a GRC doesn't impact use of the single sex exceptions - here's is a clear example of where it does! /17

@FindTheTruth

Prison governor would have to make sure all 'risks should be managed'. Judge asks which staff would be making that risk assessment. Counsel doesn't know for sure and takes instruction /9

This is very poor. They should have anticipated this question, and been prepared for it. It's basic.

The target cohort for Ewing is high risk transwomen with a GRC who's behaviour cant be managed in free association with women - but can be managed under supervision. /18

A high risk transwomen without a GRC will go to the male prison.
Commentary
This is the clearest example of how having a GRC has material advantage to a trans person in terms of accessing a women-only space /19

Commentary
We are constantly told that having a GRC makes no difference to implementation of single-sex exceptions. That means either prison isn't using the SSE in their policy OR they are misinterpreting that a GRC gives extra weight when considering proportionality for the use of SSE/20

So you can’t ask if someone has a GRC.

Being a convicted rapist is no bar to getting a GRC,

There’s no process to having a GRC rescinded, either by compulsion or voluntarily (as with Keira Bell, who would like to revert back to her sex, but I think cannot do so).

There is a presumption being made that a wrong is being done if any natal male person, who may or may not have a GRC (because you’re not permitted to ask) is denied the option to be in the female estate because of their identity.

So the policy boils down to the only bar between a rapist and a bed in a cell with a woman being their own better nature, based on the assumption that no one would lie about their gender identity?

I wonder, which sort of man would be motivated to lie about their gender identity?

And what actual, practical use is a GRC if it can’t be used in cases like this?

It is such a mes, the only solution surely is to scrap the GRA.

The target cohort for Ewing is high risk transwomen with a GRC who's behaviour cant be managed in free association with women - but can be managed under supervision. /18

But we don't know if they really have a GRC because we are not allowed to ask but any way we will allow them to associate with the other women prisoners under supervision because how the women feel about that is irrelevant.

Discussion around the operation of E Wing. SH - activities outside of E wing subject to risk assessment in response to question from LJH that most activities are outside E wing.

but the Geneva Convention comparison makes quite a stark point about the approach of the MoJ here.

Exactly. The Geneva Convention is about the basic minimum of human rights in extremis. And it says that female prisoners should be housed separately to males.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Are GRC's actively recorded? Defence counsel says No. The reason is its a breach of Section 22 of GRA2004. There is NO centralised list kept. /11

Justice H says surely prison needs to know who has a GRC for their policies to work. Counsel says its possible a prisoner may have a GRC without prison knowing. Prison only knows if the trans person discloses /12

Justice Swift: Therefore the policy only covers prisoners who acquire a GRC in prison. There's no way to know if someone has a GRC before they go to prison. /13

Defence counsel - there's no way to know if someone has a GRC and there are not many of them. The policy adequately covers most trans people who do not gave a GRC or who disclose they have. /14

FPFW commentary
(the implication here is that some male-born prisoners will get into women's prison without a risk assessment being done - because they don-t have to disclose they have a GRC - this is the big problem with privacy protections in the GRA2004!) /15

The elephant has been released from the room and has gone on a wild rampage that has damaged several important institutions.

A GRC is not something that is about an individual alone. It has an impact on the rights of others.

It was overlooked from the word go. It needs to be recognised and changed accordingly.

Prison governor would have to make sure all 'risks should be managed'.

Well with 7 proven, admitted to assaults on women prisoners in 4 years, those risks obviously are not being managed, are they? Even with all this effort, it's inadequate. How many assaults have been averted? How many near misses were prevented by the success of the protocol? And women who know this stuff from bitter experience would add: how many more assaults happened that weren't proven, weren't recorded, weren't admitted to and were brushed under the carpet? Because the percentage of those is usually multiple times the shit there's no way out of putting this one on file and having to deal with it ones.

The bottom line of this policy has always been from TRAs and the lobby group putting in place, that yes, some women will suffer but it's a price the lobby is willing to pay because privilege and bigger cause and right to be served. And women should be glad to help with this by increased risk/assault and the devastation it can cause on a woman's life. Mostly TRAs will argue long and hard that no there's no risk/its unkind/ you're imagining it/etc etc but the end point is, yes, it will happen, but suck it up for the greater good, that's what you have to do.

This is what is being tested in court. This is the basic question. Do women have equal rights to in the UK or what?

In that case it seemed to be a deliberate, depraved act on the part of some prison officers. But, at an institutional level, the faux naivety and deflection that surrounded that case feels very similar here; 'A racist you say? Might have an unwholesome interest in a black man you think? Oh deary me, that doesn't sound too good. Hey, Harry, this lady thinks our new prisoner here might not feel too sympatico about his new cell-mate, might not hit it off together. What do you think? Oh you've asked him and he's happy about it? That's all right then, nothing to worry yourself about here, madam.'

I'm not familiar with this case but that's horrifying.

SH - outlines options considered post Karen White

3 options considered:
bespoke unit in female estate (option adopted: consistent wioth legal gender & do not have to invoke 'exceptionality')
keep in general female population (risks too high)
bespoke unit in male estate (may be appropriate in future cases)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316145/Trans-prisoners-disproportionately-likely-commit-sexual-assaults-women-High-Court-hears.html

Don't know if this has already been posted but the mail have picked it up

3 options given to minister in Jan 2019 - all three go into E wing, all three go into general population, or put them in an E wing on the male estate. They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'

The female estate is not a forum for the validation of high risk male born prisoners. Astonishing that this even needs said.

In Jan 2019 minister was asked to approve transfer for 3 high risk transwomen into E-Wing. This was before E wing policy was developed /21

3 options given to minister in Jan 2019 - all three go into E wing, all three go into general population, or put them in an E wing on the male estate. They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'. /22

In July 2019 the final policy is placed before the minister - this is to have E-wing on women's prison for high risk transwomen with a GRC. /23

'directions of policy travel' were showed to minister as far back as November 2018 /24

I am still trying to pick my jaw up off my chest. Anyone got the link to the twitter feed. Have tried but no luck today

So the policy boils down to the only bar between a rapist and a bed in a cell with a woman being their own better nature

Quite. The difference in treatment is wholly sex based, which makes a lie of the whole 'there's no difference in this group hence putting them all together', and one group has immense care over their feelings, needs, sense of identity, safety (mental and physical) and choice.

The other group gets nothing more than the hope that this particular person in a space where they are vulnerable chooses today to not harm them.

This is the policy. Toilets, changing rooms, refuges, hospital wards, prisons.

Judges please tell us. Is this ok? Has society now got two tier laws, justice and human rights and your birth sex defines whether you get the gold card service or the economy/shoestring version?

How many assaults have been averted? How many near misses were prevented by the success of the protocol?

Sounds like an FOI to me

Did anyone assess how female prisoners would “benefit” from association with high risk TW?

3 options given to minister in Jan 2019 - all three go into E wing, all three go into general population, or put them in an E wing on the male estate. They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women

OMG they don't ever think about what is important for actual women do they?

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1367097413194952707?s=21

twitter.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1367097757471768579?s=21