MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Is there another example of a legal identity document that is to be kept secret at all costs, can't be asked for and can't even be known about without an individual disclosing it?

The closest example is probably adoption where a person has 2 birth certificates. However it's not verboten to talk about it in the same way, e.g. I imagine a Dr wouldn't get into trouble if asking whether a patient was adopted as part of a medical history. It's also not something that has any bearing on anyone outside of a family group.

Here are the current rules:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

On the subject of determining legal sex, the policy framework says:

4.50 Arrangements must be in place to determine the legally recognised gender of all individuals at the first point of contact to inform assessments and decisions where binary (male/female) services are provided. Individuals who have gained legal recognition of their gender via a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be issued with a new birth certificate in their acquired gender if their birth was registered in the UK.

4.51 Where a person’s gender is determined, the legal gender must be recorded on all case administration systems where ‘sex’ (male or female) is required.

4.52 Where ‘sex’ cannot be determined, staff must use the best information available, consulting with equality leads as necessary. Staff should avoid asking to see a GRC but instead request sight of a birth certificate as confirmation of legal gender where the person was born in the UK. Someone born abroad who has a UK-issued GRC may not have been able to obtain a new birth certificate in their acquired gender. A GRC is an acceptable form of proof of sex, if produced voluntarily. If an individual cannot produce a birth certificate, and have not chosen to provide a GRC, they may give permission for staff to check directly with the Gender Recognition Panel to confirm that a GRC has been issued.

4.53 Searching of the person must not be used as a means to determine gender.

Seek written consent to disclose the sex assigned at birth for individuals who are protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004

4.54 All individuals who disclose that they have applied for, or have gained, a GRC must be asked to provide written consent for their gender which was assigned at birth, and/or details of the application process, to be disclosed to/from relevant staff in or on behalf of HMPPS. Consent is entirely voluntary on the part of the individual. The benefits of disclosure may be explained by staff, which include gaining a more informed approach in planning their care and management, and may also assist in gaining an increased understanding of the triggers for offending and to improve sentencing outcomes.

4.55 Systems must be in place to maintain records which are compliant with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and do not identify a different gender or GRC application process where consent has not been given and where exemptions in s22 GRA 2004 do not apply. If consent is withheld, the previous gender and/or details of the application process must not be disclosed unless exemptions under s 22 of the GRA 2004 apply (see Legal Requirements section and supporting
operational guidance).

4.56 Staff can disclose previous gender and/or details of the application process only in the following exceptions to the offence in s.22 GRA 2004, which may be applicable to the prison context:

• s.22(4)(b) – the person has agreed to the disclosure
• s.22(4)(d) – the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal
• s.22(4)(e) - the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal
• s.22(4)(f) – the disclosure is for the purposes of preventing or investigating crime
• s.22(4)(i) – the disclosure is in accordance with an Order under s.22(5), currently this is the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2005 which allows disclosure for, amongst others, purposes of obtaining legal advice, religious purposes, medical purposes.
• s.22(4)(j) – the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

4.57 It is an offence for a person acting in an official capacity who has gained protected information relating to a person’s application for a GRC or information concerning the gender history of a successful GRC applicant to disclose the information to any other person. Unlawful disclosure is a criminal offence (Gender Recognition Act 2004, s22). All information sharing must be compliant with the GRA 2004, the GDPR and the DPA 2018.

I reckon the heads of those judges is spinning at the sheer madness that is created by the pretence that people can change sex. They must be asking conspiracy or cock up (pardon the pun)? Given the number of bull shit decisions, just how much women have been over looked, and the ludicrous position that has necessitated a court case to clarify if it is lawful to house male bodied people (including convicted rapists) alongside women in prison- they must be leaning toward conspiracy. Are the scales beginning to drop from some eyes? I do hope so.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing from some of the trans lobbying mumsnetters on this. Do they agree that this is an instance where sex based rights trump trans rights.

I mentioned upthread the case of a British Asian man who'd been battered to death after a known violent racist was placed in a cell with him. Here's a link to that case (murder in 2000, link 2006): news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5126614.stm

It came to mind reading this thread, because the context of known risk and lack of care for the potential victim(s) are common to both.

There seemed to have been other things going on in that case (including overcrowding) and it doesn't rely on the (white, male) murderer being 'privileged' in the sense of particular importance being placed on his needs and wishes but it does show a lack of care for the impact of the decision to place him in that cell, on a cell-mate who was specifically vulnerable to his potential further criminal activity. Much like putting a rapist in a prison with women.

I can imagine that that sort of decision is much easier if you happen to view Asian people, women, or indeed all prisoners, as 'other'.

In practice you have to challenge the MoJ which makes the process stacked against a woman prison who has to fund the legal side of this and has to prove negligence. Remembering that in many cases women in prison have a history of being unreliable witnesses with little credibility. Thats also neglecting the emotional toll of going up against a government institution.

Not to mention the very heavy weight of problems that the government institution will have to deal with if it has to be faced and acknowledged that this happened. The weight of which in itself would pressure prisons towards minimising, avoiding or not recording or reporting incidents. Its stacked against women all the way.

@stuckinatrap

Is there another example of a legal identity document that is to be kept secret at all costs, can't be asked for and can't even be known about without an individual disclosing it?

It just seems completely insane to get this Secret Fucking Squirrel certificate so that you can change your birth certificate to a legal fiction and no one can ever know.

Then to base policy on the production of this Top Secret Certificate which an individual can't be asked about nor be compelled to admit exists is too ludicrous to be believed.

I take my hats off to judges at times like these. They must have will of steel not to get visibly angered or incredulous.

This, this and thrice this

Do they agree that this is an instance where sex based rights trump trans rights

I wouldn’t get your hopes up. The response I’ve seen in the past is some combination of “but women are violent, too”, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”, and “it never happens”. I have never seen a direct answer to the question “do women prisoners have the right not to be locked up with male bodied people”?, there is only obfuscation to avoid answering “no, they don’t”.

@Signalbox

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?

But if TWAW, and a specialist wing in male prisons is created, then they WILL be associating with women. And more specifically 'women' who have the same needs and experiences as they do, which is probably more beneficial to everyone all around.

But I forgot. As with the huge numbers of TW on lesbian dating sites, they dont want validation from other TW do they

This is where the idea of a 'legal fiction' comes crashing into the reality of life where fiction doesn't actually exist.

The entire concept of building fiction into law is a nonsense.

Hang on, don’t prisoners get searched as they go in, in case of hidden drugs, weapons etc. It would be quite obvious to guards who are literally “looking in their pants” what kind of genitalia they are looking at. The prison service seems to think that they wouldn’t know about a TW who passes and has a GRC.

It comes down to: group A's needs can only be met by methods involving harm to group B.

If group A and group B's needs are given equal weight then some of A's needs are going to have to go unmet. The harm to others cannot be justified.

This is the question really. Are group B equal or not?

Lord Swift struggling to see how a policy for transwomen with a GRC can be applied if MOJ don't know who all the transwomen with a GRC are! yes! /30

defence counsel says we know "some of them". We know anecdotally. Justice Swift says the policy can't be based on anecdote. /31

@Let2020beoversoon

Hang on, don’t prisoners get searched as they go in, in case of hidden drugs, weapons etc. It would be quite obvious to guards who are literally “looking in their pants” what kind of genitalia they are looking at. The prison service seems to think that they wouldn’t know about a TW who passes and has a GRC.

The policy says you can’t use a search to determine gender. If you search a person with a penis and they say they’re a woman and produce a GRC/birth certificate that says they’re a woman then you have to believe they’re a woman. You can’t disclose or document the fact they’re male without consent from that individual.

Is it still the case that even those placed on E wing can mix with female prisoners anyway? All this talk of a separate unit, when in reality the only thing that is separate is sleeping accommodation.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/high-risk-transgender-inmates-at-downview-mix-with-women-zt33zb2ks

Poor data is such a theme. Why are people so afraid of accurate records?

@Sophoclesthefox

Do they agree that this is an instance where sex based rights trump trans rights

I wouldn’t get your hopes up. The response I’ve seen in the past is some combination of “but women are violent, too”, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”, and “it never happens”. I have never seen a direct answer to the question “do women prisoners have the right not to be locked up with male bodied people”?, there is only obfuscation to avoid answering “no, they don’t”.

I've seen that too. Women shouldn't break the law if they don't want to be imprisoned with males. They never say the same of TW though...

There was a poster a while ago arguing that TW should be housed with women, because the women in the female estate, many victims of sexual abuse, assault, DV, are treated more kindly by staff. Oh and women in prison have privileges and it's not fair. Their privileges? Access to makeup and 'woman' clothes, I shit you not.

So we should put sex offenders in with women because makeup.

Justice Swift is "disturbed" by the fact there's no clear answer on how many transwomen in GRC there are in womens prison. Judge needs to assess the scale of the risk. He questions the reluctance to provide the data /32

Justice Swift rather cross that the full data set was not provided when he asked for it overnight. /33

Looks to me like the MOJ have been to the Tavistock school of data collection

Lesson 1 - decide the outcome
Lesson 2 - don’t collect data that might undermine that outcome

What exactly does a GRC do? Does it change a birth certificate so that it is actually impossible to know that it has been changed?

Eg if I was born John Smith, and I am now Jane Smith, I can get a name change by deed poll and then a GRC, and then my brither certificate will say Jane Smith, F, born 1960?

I somehow thought this wasn't the case - that it was somehow possible to tell from the birth certificate that a GRC had been received -maybe an issue date?

Is there a link somewhere that has a simple read? I have searched haven't found anything definitive.

Data is abusive. Reality is bigotry. War is peace.

Defence Counsel is now raising evidence submitted by Nicola Williams. 5 times more assaults in prison by trans compared to women. Defence says numbers too small /34

Now disputing fact that if half of transwomen have a sexual conviction this doesn't mean the risk is increased on an individual basis. Because in effect only the safe ones go into the women's prison and if they are dangerous they are supervised. /35

on a guilty verdict the policy makes it compulsory to send a tw with a grc to a women's prison. Not the case if they don't have a grc. That's a new policy change.

No, it's not. This was the same under the 2016 rules. Those are only available via archive sites now:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170809184529/www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psis/prison-service-instructions-2016" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20170809184529/www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psis/prison-service-instructions-2016

Scroll down to 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders. It's a bit slow to download.

Couple of screenshots I had saved show the equivalent instructions from the old rules.

If I remember right, the biggest change with the new rules was that the case board would meet within 14 days instead of 3, in order to allow time for a bit more investigation, and there was clearer guidance on the assessment of risk.

Is there a given reason why sex can't be determined by looking at someone or during the body search? There are senior (retired) prison officials on record saying that most trans women prisoners do not 'pass' and many make no effort to adopt a feminine appearance. Why can't prison staff just point out the blindingly obvious? There may be a few trans men with an adam's apple due to early hormone treatment, but otherwise adam's apple= male. And any male describing themselves as a woman/female is trans. Why is this not allowed?