MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Letter

Women’s prison safety

SIR – We are concerned that the right to single-sex spaces for women in prison is not being upheld.

This week a judicial review was brought by a female prisoner who reported being sexually assaulted by a male-bodied prisoner convicted of sexual offences who was imprisoned with her.

We believe this case confirms the unacceptability of prison policy, which allows male-born prisoners who have a Gender Recognition Certificate stating they are legally women to be housed in women’s prisons.

The Equality Act permits all males (notwithstanding protected-characteristic gender reassignment) to be excluded from single-sex spaces for women, where this is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. We consider women’s prisons to be definitive examples of facilities used by women that should be single-sex.

The vulnerability of female prisoners is well established and evidence demonstrates that female offenders require female-only settings.

We note the statement by Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the provision of single‑sex spaces for women. All vulnerable prisoners have the right to be safe, but the needs of one group cannot come at a cost to the safety and wellbeing of women in prison.

We call upon the Ministry of Justice, HM Prisons and Probation Service, and the Scottish Prisons Service to bring policy in line with the Equality Act.

Allison Bailey
Barrister
Lucy Masoud
Barrister
Kama Melly QC
Susan Bennett
Former Principal Psychologist, HM Prison Service
Kate Donegan
Prison Governor (retd)
Rhona Hotchkiss
Prison Governor (retd)
Professor Elaine Player
King’s College London
Professor Kathleen Stock
University of Sussex
Professor Selina Todd
University of Oxford
Merry Van Woodenberg
Barrister
Ian Acheson
Former Prison Governor
Anne Ruzylo
Prison Officer (retd)
Sally Wainwright
Parole Review Manager (retd)
Maggie Mellon
Trustee, Howard League Scotland
Lucy Hunter Blackburn
Former Deputy Director, Scottish Government (Reducing Reoffending Division)
Lisa Mackenzie
Former Policy Adviser to Howard League Scotland
Dr Michael Biggs
University of Oxford
Dr Kath Murray
Research Fellow in Criminology, University of Edinburgh
Dr Hannah Quirk
Reader in Criminal Law, King’s College London
Robert Wintemute
Professor of Human Rights Law, King’s College London
Julie Bindel
Author & Journalist
Ann Sinnott
Director, AEA

Thank you to the anonymous woman at the centre of this case for having the courage to bring this case.

I hope that this results in real change for vulnerable women in prison. I do think the best thing they could to was to set up a specific trans prison (other countries have them). This would be the best way to safeguard all vulnerable prisoners.

I do have hope that it will get a good result as the case the MoJ put forward was completely bonkers.

Thanks, ova and kpss

Someone mentioned "wait till Tuesday" or something like that, and another posted asked what was happening on Tuesday and was told "the census!", but actually what was being referred to (I believe) is Graham Linehan and Helen Staniland speaking in the House Of Lords. Census day is Sunday 21st.

Just clearing that up!

Thanks so so much to KPSS, FPFW and all my wonderful MN sisters who refuse to be quiet.

No, what’s happening on Tuesday is the initial court hearing for the FPFW challenge to the Census sex question guidance.

Thank you to the anonymous woman at the centre of this case for having the courage to bring this case.

Yes, second this

Tuesday is a double court day. FPFW interim challenge on the census and Harry Miller in the Court of Appeal.

@OldCrone

LangClegsInSpace The trouble is the prison service are not allowed to collect this data! The GRA makes it illegal except in very few specific circumstances.

I can't find any reference about not collecting data in the GRA. Section 22 talks about not disclosing whether someone has a GRC, but I can't see anything about people not being able to hold the information if they have a legitimate reason for doing so.

Yes, you're right. How would it work though?

S22 says 'It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.' - which would include colleagues.

Wouldn't you just end up with a database that nobody was allowed to look at? I suppose you could use it to generate anonymised stats, which would be something.

I have a question (actually a few).

If we know MOJ acknowledges seven sexual assaults on women by transwomen, but doesn’t believe FDJ then how many alleged incidents have there been?

What is the investigation process? What evidence is required for MoJ/PS to acknowledge an incident? What evidence is there these incidents didn’t occur?

If an incident isn’t formally acknowledged are alleged victims still protected from their alleged attackers? What does this look like?

As MoJ doesn’t record transwomen with GRC as male what is the assault figures for female on female incidents (both alleged and acknowledged)? How are MoJ establishing these are in fact female attackers? Are these figures increasing or decreasing?

Can we see the risk assessments associated with having males in the female estate?

Is this something a FOI request could be made around (obviously the language would need tweaking)

@LangClegsInSpace I think preventing and detection of crime is an exception. I don’t see why that exception couldn’t be used by MoJ given we’re talking about known criminals

If they don't know which 'women' have penises, then they are exposing women to pregnancy. If any given woman in prison might have a penis, then surely they need to be conducting pregnancy tests to all women, every week or so? If pregnancy is a risk, then so is rape. If any given woman can rape another, why are ANY women sharing cells?

Also, doesn't this happen all the time in HR and hiring procedures?

Employees complete an equalities form, which is used only for anonymous data on ethnicity, sex...etc. No one can see individual details.

It doesn't breach any individual's privacy to collect general data, does it?

S22 says 'It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.' - which would include colleagues.

Wouldn't you just end up with a database that nobody was allowed to look at? I suppose you could use it to generate anonymised stats, which would be something.

I would have thought that this information would be treated in much the same way as any other confidential information about a prisoner. The prison governor would know about it, along with a few other staff in the prison who wouldn't be at liberty to disclose it to all the other staff or to anyone else except under one of the conditions in section 22 (4).

22 (4) But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

And as you say, having this record would mean that when asked in court how many trans people with GRCs are currently in women's prisons, they would be able to state the figure.

Ahh thanks! Sorry for my confusion. There's lots to look out for!

Well done to all those fantastic women pushing this to JR - fingers crossed for a sensible outcome

My summary of Day Two:

Part 1: Equality Act

It was clear from evidence presented that the MoJ is seemingly determined to house at least some male prisoners in the female estate & to expose women in prison to them. Even the highest risk TW are still able to mix with women.

Distress to women is never a consideration: defence states this cannot be operationalised in risk ax.

The decision that EA exceptions did not apply to prisons was based on definition of ‘services’ & ‘communal accommodation’. SSJ now concedes that in some respects prison is a ‘service’ for purposes of EA exceptions.

BUT: EA exceptions are statement of permissibility not obligation. Decision-maker is free to ignore these or to implement a lower threshold. The legal obligation in EA is non-discrimination. AGAIN: The defence stated that women have NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY SPACES FREE OF MALES. The CAN be provided, but there is NO OBLIGATION.

Defence: WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHT IN LAW TO SINGLE-SEX SPACES.

The policies meet the obligations under EA & Lucy Frazer in November 2020 confirmed the correctness of these. It was open to her to make a different decision & she did not.

Part 2: Data collection

Defence confirmed that no data are collected on GRC holders. The reason for this is that collecting this may be criminalised under the GRA.

Judges were incredulous that ‘no one knows’ how many TW with a GRC there are stating that anecdotal reports are inadequate. Defence was directed to supply specific data on GRC holders.

We frequently hear that it is a criminal act to state that someone has a GRC. The Equal Treatment Bench Book goes as far as to say that misgendering and dead naming could also be criminal acts.

It cannot be the case that the law, or the interpretation of that law, criminalises gathering data that is vital to safeguarding and to risk ax. No entitlement to privacy can trump the safety of others in this way.

Part 3: Karen Jones & Article 8 rights

Defence referred to legal case brought by a TW with a GRC who had not (yet) had surgery, and who sought to be transferred from the male to the female estate. We have identified this as the case brought by Karen Jones:

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/karen-jones

The judge ruled in favour of Jones, stating that to deny the request was both in violation of Article 8 rights and ‘irrational’. We assume that defence case is similarly that to exclude TW (at least those with GRC) from female estate is ‘irrational’.

What was not stated in court yesterday is the following:
Jones was convicted of a brutal attempted rape, committed through rage of not being a woman
Jones had previously been imprisoned for murder of partner who had refused to fund reassignment
The attempted rape was committed 5 days after release from prison

What was also not stated was that at no point in those proceedings were the interests of women in prison represented. Worse, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic stated in his evidence that the only women in prison who would object to Jones are THE SORT OF WOMEN WHO ENJOY CONFLICT.

Thanks for the summary KPSS. The sheer disregard for the safety and welfare of women astounds me. I can only hope the Judges were shocked by that too.

I hope the judges will read the full transcript in Jones and will form their own opinion on this.

Thank you to all.

And 💐💐💐💐💐 to the brave woman whose courage I hugely admire. You are a strong woman, with many strong women behind you.

Courage calls to courage everywhere, and its voice cannot be denied.☀️

Regardless of the outcome of this case, I wonder if the government will HAVE to review the GRA. It is an absolute mess and needs sorting out. I think with the number of cases, the government will have no choice. They know it's a mess, we know it's a mess, the Judges know it's a mess - time for some action

Worse, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic stated in his evidence that the only women in prison who would object to Jones are THE SORT OF WOMEN WHO ENJOY CONFLICT

That's so shocking. Do you know if the judges in this case can just ignore the ruling in Jones if they feel like it was wrong?

@Signalbox

Worse, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic stated in his evidence that the only women in prison who would object to Jones are THE SORT OF WOMEN WHO ENJOY CONFLICT

That's so shocking. Do you know if the judges in this case can just ignore the ruling in Jones if they feel like it was wrong?

I am genuinely sickened by that.

Dr Barrett sounds like a fucking charmer

Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic stated in his evidence that the only women in prison who would object to Jones are THE SORT OF WOMEN WHO ENJOY CONFLICT.

It's a disgusting attitude. We're giving violent sex offenders access to incarcerated women, and the only women who object are doing so for fun.

You're literally damned if you do and damned if you don't.

It's a fucking, huge, metaphorical ducking stool.

Worse, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic stated in his evidence that the only women in prison who would object to Jones are THE SORT OF WOMEN WHO ENJOY CONFLICT

What a disgraceful remark.