MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

@Signalbox yup they are. About a third of the way down the page under "Government": www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

This is fascinating. As I read it people in the courtroom, including the judges, seem to be saying that the law is incomprehensible in terms of giving a concrete framework about what to do in particular situations.

We already knew that. The big question is: will anyone be brave enough to do anything about it?

Bingo

A quick Google brings this list from 2015

www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

Very quick CaveMum

@Signalbox

I find the idea that the MOJ didn't know that it could use the single-sex exceptions in the EA rather quite incredible. I just can't believe that it is true. And if it is true how do they expect other services to understand that this is an option that is open to them.

Are the MOJ a Stonewall Champion by any chance?

www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/moj-named-top-government-employer-for-lgbt-staff

@allmywhat

The judges can order the MOJ to do something, prevent it from doing something or quash the MOJ’s decision.

If the court effectively declares that the single sex exemption could have been applied and that the MOJ discriminated against female prisoners by failing to take into account their needs in my view the policy would have to be suspended pending a full review.

It would be possible that a full review could theoretically find that TW posted no risk to female prisoners but the evidence that currently exists doesn’t support that.

I don’t think there would be any real appetite in Parliament to amend the provisions of the Equality Act to specify the single sex provisions don’t apply to prisons. It’s the sort of thing that would trigger “interesting” headlines.

@testingmitb

Very quick CaveMum

Fastest Fingers in the West

I can't believe all this stuff about how the EA (and single sex exemptions) don't apply to prisons

will anyone be brave enough to do anything about it?

Luckily, Judges (and peers in the house of Lords) can't be cancelled for looking at facts, giving opinions, talking clearly and making judgements

Re MOJ not believing single sex exemption applies to prisons: It’s shocking (or is it?) how very vulnerable women have been thrown under a bus for the want of risking upsetting or offending the trans activist lobby. They just didn’t care. Didn’t want to take the risk of asking awkward questions, when it was only about safeguarding women.

Too many times in this, women are the collateral damage in what’s seen as some cheap and easy virtue signalling. It’s all seen as cost free, because the costs to us don’t matter.

In a nutshell, Careful, this needs to be shouted out loud. The first duty of a Government is to keep its citizens safe and that includes women, even those who are in prison.

Judge asking about where a transwomen convicted of rape with a GRC would be taken straight after sentencing. The policy says must be female - no discretion. KM argues that this policy allows no proportionality test. Therefore no ability to apply single sex exceptions /22

KM: Risk assessment recognises 'anatomy' as relevant. Nevertheless there is no discretion about whether a transwomen with a GRC being initially located in the women's estate - irrespective of anatomy /23

That is properly insane, Chaz.

I don’t think there would be any real appetite in Parliament to amend the provisions of the Equality Act to specify the single sex provisions don’t apply to prisons. It’s the sort of thing that would trigger “interesting” headlines.

You'll probably be really interested in the screenshot answer given in this MN thread.

I’m glad the judge asked. It shows that they can see a potential problem with the policy.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4180802-For-heavens-sake

The EA applied to prisons in 2013:

https://filia.org.uk/news/2018/8/23/has-everyone-really-got-it-wrong

There are very few cases which deal with this, but I would suggest that this view is supported by the comments of HHJ Jeremy Richardson QC inR (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice[2013] EWHC 3491 (Admin). In that case the Court was dealing with an application by a male prisoner who had murdered his wife and who now wished to be considered female. Green did not have a dysphoria diagnosis but was treated by the prison and the court with the courtesy of being referred to as a woman (presumably socially, given that neither biological nor legal womanhood applied). At paragraphs 66 - 70 HHJ Richardson said that

“A comparator has to be found in order for there to be discrimination or for the claimant to show she has had less favourable treatment. The claimant asserts the comparator should be a female prisoner; whereas the governor contends it should be a male prisoner. There can be no doubt the claimant has a protected characteristic – gender reassignment. The claimant is, however, male. The only possible comparator is to a male prisoner who is not undergoing gender reassignment.

This is why when people start arguing for an elected judiciary, I scream, inwardly but VERY loudly.

It turns out that judges asking witnesses who have disregarded the rights of women "How far are you willing to go with this?" is a very potent question. Because if they confirm what they've been willing to do (and to deny that would be perjury) people new to this issue are horrified.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4180802-For-heavens-sake

Chazs

I don’t think there would be any real appetite in Parliament to amend the provisions of the Equality Act to specify the single sex provisions don’t apply to prisons. It’s the sort of thing that would trigger “interesting” headlines

You'll probably be really interested in the screenshot answer given in this MN thread.

agree Chaz good questions from the judges

Ereshkigalangcleg - thats an interesting case especially the bit about the only possible comparator is to a male prisoner

LHJ wants more information on the single sex exemption.

PurpleHoodie
Very sensible answer to a daft question.

Can you imagine what the Daily Mail or Sun would make of a decision by Parliament to roll back single sex protections in prisons.

It continues to stun and appall me: the hard reality of how the establishment and society view women as subhuman, while they regard male people as the real humans with value, importance, feelings, rights etc. This is a bloody awful time to have been born female in the UK, it really is.

Very sensible.

"We have no intention to amend the Equality Act" is an interesting stand out from her answer.