MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

X posted with Ova

FPFW put ads in prison newspapers and were contacted by loads of women. seem to recall one prisoner asking why rapists were walking around in the female gym and library. this east wing set up is a joke.

Was the category A/category B situation mentioned at any point??

The MoJ might not be able to answer those final questions. seem to recall a FPFW FOI asking the same things and being told the data didn't exist. could be like Keira' case where the defence /public body doesn't have the basic data underpinning their entire policy and process

I'm beginning to wonder if it's not so much that the prison service is trying to defend the indefensible but more that they're making a bad case on purpose

The poor case presentation and lack of data is strikingly similar the KB case. When people say "there is no evidence" it's fast becoming apparent that the evidence is deliberately not being collected so that nothing can be evidenced.

Which presumably is also why the census do not want to properly collect data in relation to trans people.

Will there be a judgement today??

Thank you for keeping us all up to date

@Numicon

Will there be a judgement today??

No it's usually between a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the complexity.

@fairplaywomen

Initial reflections after the trans prison JR hearing

1. Good data collection matters - how can there be a workable policy on how to deal with transwomen with a GRC when the MOJ doesn't even know how many there are in prison. /1

2. Having a GRC is more than 'just admin'. MOJ says its a 'weighty matter' when it comes to making decisions about balancing risks

In essence, having a GRC enables a high risk male-born sex offender to get supervised association with women without their consent /2

3. This is the first time court has considered the interactions between the GRA2004 and EA2010 single sex exceptions. Turns out its not as straightforward as Stonewall has been telling everyone.... /3

4. Judges were not impressed with the quality of the MOJ data collection and did not like the defences claim that they only have 'anecdotal' evidence of how many trans with GRC there are in prison /4

I hope the MOJ are glad @fairplaywomen
pushed them to start gathering the data they do now collect - otherwise it would have looked even worse for them

They wouldn't have any sex disaggregated data on trans prisoners or % of sex offenders if we hadn't extracted it from them /5

It will be very interesting to see whether or not they can get information that a judge wants even though they didn't have it before.

A FOI only has to release information if it is already collected. I presume if a judge wants it they may try to collate it even if they don't have it already?

2) Having a GRC is more than 'just admin'. MOJ says its a 'weighty matter' when it comes to making decisions about balancing risks

This contradicts the TRA message that was prevalent when the GRA consultation was taking place that applying for a GRC is mere admin.

I think it is very difficult for the MOJ to argue that they have properly considered the risk to female prisoners when they have failed to collect the data that allows them to quantify the scale of the risk. So how can E Wing be said to be a proportionate answer to an unquantified risk.

Good point Why.

hope they do. like FPFW say, good data is important for everyone.

remembering Owen and Ruth laughing - "it's just admin"

Not admin for the women sexually assaulted. But like Ruth said 'Men rape'

tenor.com/view/stonewall-ruth-hunt-owen-jones-self-id-terf-gif-13204769

media1.tenor.com/images/d563ca102350b6223f652af9485511cd/tenor.gif?itemid=13204769

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I think it is very difficult for the MOJ to argue that they have properly considered the risk to female prisoners when they have failed to collect the data that allows them to quantify the scale of the risk. So how can E Wing be said to be a proportionate answer to an unquantified risk.

Key question this.

How can you risk assess something you haven't identified?

So their case is pretty much admitting that John Smith (to use someone's example upthread) could commit multiple sexual assaults and serve time in a men's prison, get out and apply for a GRC (which requires no surgery or hormones) and become Jane Smith, commit another crime and then be automatically sent to a woman's prison based on their new birth certificate and be locked in overnight a cell with a female prisoner.
And if they then assault that prisoner, the MOJ will not only have done no safeguarding or checks along the way but the only record they might have is of a 'female' on female assault in the prison.
Good god.

The MoJ, the Government and all those who are responsible for the GRA look not only foolish but that they have and deliberately and wilfully caused harm to women and they don't care and are determined to carry on doing so.

The MOJ look like they don't care about women prisoners

It’s very telling that the legislation for GRA specifically allows for biological sex to be recognised when it comes to the descent of peerages, and allows the Freemasons to exclude transmen even if they have a GRC, but seemingly did not factor in that biological sex may be important in other settings. Like when women are locked up with a rapist...

It’s very telling that the legislation for GRA specifically allows for biological sex to be recognised when it comes to the descent of peerages, and allows the Freemasons to exclude transmen even if they have a GRC, but seemingly did not factor in that biological sex may be important in other settings. Like when women are locked up with a rapist...

What's worse, if that's even possible at this juncture, is that the MoJ do factor bio sex into prison settings because they don't send transmen to the male estate. Not even for the much lauded validation purposes.

So they do know.

Whilst this case was depressing in so many ways, the daylight now being shone on these issues is a good thing. It just annoys me that this was allowed to happen with little or no regard for the safety of women. Not only that, it would still be going unnoticed if KPSS and FPFW hadn’t stepped in and ordinary people hadn’t funded the the litigation. Why should private individuals have to fund dragging the MOJ into court over locking up women with intact male offenders.

Why should we have to fund the challenging of any of the egregious overreach by lobby groups determined to misrepresent women's rights and the law?

It's sickening.

Well depressing as it is so much sunlight. The response from some on twitter is telling. They really don't like women talking, and Judicial Review by Judicial Review hopefully winning. Lot of the usual suspects very angry today.