Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

It's finally here...
The judgement in the prisons judicial review R (FDJ) v SSJ
will be handed down by email at 10.30 am today...

Here is a reminder of what it was about:

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/judicial-review-campaign-update

Depressingly, there are men incarcerated in the women's estate who have committed serious sexual crimes against women, despite claims to the contrary www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/who-are-males-in-women-s-prisons

I think maybe in Scotland they don't have any cat a equivalent prisons for women (no idea why very mysterious) so they go to a wing with the men.

I'm really surprised that women are put in the general male population if they are violent sex offenders. If women are incarcerated there, why would transwomen who commit those sorts of offences go in with the women?

Is the idea that prisons should be categorised by what the crime was, instead of sex?

Out of interest, does anyone feel like they've heard this argument from people with a different interest?

Women commit violent sex offences too

It's a people problem that impacts everyone. Not a sex thing. If you're only concerned with one sex then you're being very unfair. Things are actually worse for men so why aren't you doing something about that (instead).

Now this is finished

Finished? Not by a long shot. Especially now that a judge has acknowledged that the MoJ's trans inclusion policy puts female prisoners at risk, acknowledged that the inclusion of male transgender prisoners harms female prisoners and that the rights of female prisoners and male transgender prisoners do indeed conflict, with female prisoners losing rights when male transgender prisoners are included in the female estate.

That judge decided that the rights of male transgender prisoners supersede the rights of female prisoners. If you think that women, especially women's rights campaigners will meekly accept such an injustice, especially when it is inflicted on some of the most vulnerable of us, you don't understand women at all.

No holding back now!

And yes, women going for JRs that is us holding back. Parliament is sovereign in the UK. The legislative stands below. Which is why judges dislike judicial reviews. They ask judges to find that the state acted unreasonable. No judge wants to do that, unless the claimant can demonstrate that the state acted extremely unreasonable. Which is why the chance of succeeding at a judicial review are no higher than 30%. In most cases even less. But the bar is lower in straightforward discrimination cases. And that's where we should now turn.

(IANAL, but have had this explained to me by an actual lawyer. Any mistakes in the above are mine.)

Very naively I still find it shocking that the MoJ argued in court for their right to place predatory male born rapists and sex offenders in prisons with vulnerable women. They think it's a good thing.
It's like being in a parallel universe.
Presumably the fact that they were a Stonewall champion (until the last few weeks) means that they will have had to obey Stonewall's rules but now that that they've left will their anti women stance start to shift a bit?

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

Well said! I did some digging for you today as I spotted the garden needed tending.

I still find it hard to get my head around the fact that males convicted of sexual violence against women can go in women's prisons.

That it's happened.

That it's supported so vocally.

I mean WTF. It's just bizarre. It's obviously completely wrong.

And yet here we are.

@NiceGerbil

I still find it hard to get my head around the fact that males convicted of sexual violence against women can go in women's prisons.

That it's happened.

That it's supported so vocally.

I mean WTF. It's just bizarre. It's obviously completely wrong.

And yet here we are.

We've all been boiled like frogs. If you went back even a decade and put it to any politician from any party in plain terms that you would like male sex offenders moving from the male estate to the female estate I can guarantee every single one would look at you like you were insane.

But yes, here we are.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

Thank you. For everything you're doing

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

with you.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

Thank god! and thank you

@NiceGerbil

I still find it hard to get my head around the fact that males convicted of sexual violence against women can go in women's prisons.

That it's happened.

That it's supported so vocally.

I mean WTF. It's just bizarre. It's obviously completely wrong.

And yet here we are.

Yup. That's what makes this judgement so hard to understand. The challenge wasn't against any male being included. Just those who had victimised women. And then to be told that yes, we have to accept that males who committed sexual or violent crimes against women can lawfully be included even though it was accepted that this puts women at risk of male violence and even though the mere inclusion of male prisoners harms women, regardless of an actual assault happening. It's incomprehensible.

And it tells me unequivocally that it's high time the law itself was changed.

Just catching up with all of this and it's horrific. We are not 'non-trans women' ffs!

Even BBC is having to say the 'rights aren't like pie' argument is falling apart

bbc.in/3jHcqxd?fbclid=IwAR2GBPBWesPvl7YM3BkSdAajg4HQTE9O3k8qrhsHD-6Dj0WGTetKjHOqcx0

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Finished???

I'm only just starting...

Thanks for all your work and for keeping going

I've been flipping between sadness and rage all day over this hearing. Every time there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel another train comes hurtling towards women!!

Thinking about the men who are at risk of other men in the male facility... surely they are all going to now need to move to the female prison, for their own safety. But the only way they can do this is by identifying as trans. Isn't that like forcing vulnerable male prisoners to go through a type of state-approved 'conversion therapy', which they are illegalising?

So angry about this.
Does the judgment suggest we leave it all up to the magical risk assessment processes (in environments where no relevant data is gathered), just like we're meant to leave all the consent issues to the medical 'experts' that don't gather relevant data?

The prisons issue is what first made me think twice about TWAW btw - The Hudson case.

'And then to be told that yes, we have to accept that males who committed sexual or violent crimes against women can lawfully be included even though it was accepted that this puts women at risk of male violence and even though the mere inclusion of male prisoners harms women, regardless of an actual assault happening. It's incomprehensible.'

Just thinking.

Maybe it makes sense if you remember.

Women and girls are supposed to somehow 'protect themselves' from predatory men.

If we get attacked it's our own fault. These women are in prison. Whatever happens they've brought it on themselves. Committing crime is like wearing a short skirt, walking alone after dark, drinking etc etc. What did you expect?

Women and girls lie about sex offences all the time. These women are in prison. Not honest then. Maybe they don't like the trans prisoner. Could well be a false accusation due to transphobia. Attention seeking. Mentally ill.

Women and girls are prey. That's just a fact. Sex offenders who want to attack them can and will. That's life. Accept it.

On the outside rape is so unlikely to have any consequences for the rapist it's practically decriminalised. The police have said that things like flashing are of no interest to them. Why would it be different in prison?

So I suppose the male centred view is women get all this stuff anyway whether in or out of prison. So what's the problem. And some male people can feel safer.

So from that perspective it makes sense.

I hope that is a totally paranoid way to look at it.

But there's something really bizarre going on with this.

It's misogyny. In the end.

@DisgustedofManchester

The right decision. Sexual assaults in women prisons are common and are an issue but they are not made by MtF trans prisoners. The whole prison thing is a red herring as trans women cannot just self identify into a women's facility. They have to be risk assessed first on a case by case basis. In fact the Karen White incident is the example that proves the rule because the prison service admits it failed to carry out the due diligence that was expected of it. As far as I understand, women who are violent sex offenders are kept in male prisons anyway.

Now this is finished perhaps women will look to support those viulnerable prisoners who coerced into sex for safety or just plain sexually assaulted by male staff or other prisoners.

There is more horse shit in this post than in my garden. Pretty much every sentence is demonstrably untrue.

@HighNetGirth

Not as bad as some are making out. This is a loss but not a brush-off, if you see what I mean.

The judges refused to strike down the policy in its entirety but are leaving the door open (complete with a beckoning hand and a come-hither look) for challenges to individual cases where the policies are not followed to the letter and the risk assessment is not robust. Plus HMPPS is told to jolly well collect data on trans prisoners properly.

So, battle lost, outcome of war remains to be seen.

Yes, the door is now open to civil cases against the MoJ. Could even go to the ECHR.

Ddraig

Whether that poster realises that their argument is exactly the same as ones popular with MRAs, I don't know.

@InvisibleDragon

Would that information be available from a FOI request?

Not sure. It would have to be carefully worded as you can't ask for info that identifies individuals.

You could maybe ask how many of these 97 sexual assaults were committed by staff / female prisoners.

You could also ask the question the other way round: how many staff / trans prisoners / prisoners housed in the female estate are recorded to have committed a sexual assault.

That could potentially tell you how many individuals contributed to the total assaults.

Could you also ask how many of these assaults were carried out by prisoners that had been transferred from the male estate? It wouldn't give a complete picture, as there may be male prisoners in the female estate that were sent there directly, but it'd give an indication of how badly the safeguarding protocols in the transfer process are failing female prisoners.

I think they go pretty much automatically don't they. Risk assessment then happens.

Being transferred to the female estate and then back to the male again isn't uncommon.

The thing is that the risk assessment is ? around certain types of thing. And may well not include some of the things that have led to transfer to male prison.

Weeping with rage and despair that it has been so openly stated that this policy is dangerous for women, but legal. Just thinking that for many male prisoners, because of the increased no of crimes that men do, the tariffs for those that actually end up in prison must be higher..ie more serious crimes , longer sentences etc. As opposed to women who are in prison for shorter periods ,whose crimes are nearly all minor in comparison. So most male prisoners are likely to be higher risk to begin with , let alone the extra higher figure for TW. Given that there are huge numbers of dangerous sex offenders and paedophiles at large in the community, those in prison must be the most dangerous. None of this means it is acceptable to place any man with or without a GRC in the female estate, ever. And the ones with a GRC are still men and should be recorded as such.
Solidarity to the woman who brought the case. I am sure there will be many of us who will contribute to any case that will lead to a change in policy and justice for women.