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

@Manderleyagain

In the case of sexual assualt and rape cases, these have to be held in a seperate wing (E) I think, which is in the women's estate but there are no links to the women. I think there are links to thd women. They have supervised association with women during the day. That's a shocking bit if the policy. The prisoner who brought the case said she was sexually assaulted this way.

When the E wings were first proposed, there was an idea floated that it would be a good idea if women could be housed there too, to give the transwomen good role models about how to behave as women. Not surprisingly the idea was dropped as it was pointed out that apart from the inherent danger this posed to women prisoners, women in prison were not there to socially engineer deviant behaviour in others.

They used to do the same on tiger shoots apparently, tie a couple of goats up under a tree and wait....... didn’t stop the tigers eating goats funnily enough.

Please, please go over the the petition section and sign the one there about recording the correct sex of offenders in Scotland. It’s hugely important especially in the light of today.

I am so cross with this judgement. I read it (only had a quick skim) that a) the argumentation from our side was slightly muddled, b) that there are sufficiently procedures in place that the overall framework is legal and c) that there is a lack of information to suggest otherwise.

a) why was the argumentation on our side unclear? (I believe it wasn’t argued that all transwomen should be excluded, unclear argument on the distress of women?)
b) did our side try to state that the individual processes didn’t work ?
c) did our side state that information needed to be collected?

Overall, I just find this classist as well as sexist. The men in power are counting on that the process will be fair. The process are never fair for vulnerable, working class women who are up against males. That is what these people cannot grasp.

I cannot believe this. It is disgusting.

And Why is it always about the 'risk' involved? Focusing solely on the trans person? Their behaviour. Their feelings. Their crime.

What about the incarcerated women whose PTSD from male violence will be triggered by the presence of a male? Any male.

And, for the love of god, any male who is prepared to violate the boundaries of incarcerated women isn't suddenly going to start treating them with respect, is he?

And they acknowledge that the very cohort demanding access are the very cohort who present more risk of sexually offending.

It's inhumane.

To me a "transgender woman" is a female person who identifies as a man.

Richard Garside who is a criminal justice expert also pulls out some "hopeful" points in this Twitter thread (which I hope I have linked correctly). He's worth a follow on this issue

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1410917867990704129

[quote BuffysBigSister]Richard Garside who is a criminal justice expert also pulls out some "hopeful" points in this Twitter thread (which I hope I have linked correctly). He's worth a follow on this issue

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1410917867990704129[/quote]
Garside has been a consistent voice of reason on this topic for some time (even when it led to a conference being cancelled).

archive of his thread (it might need updating later): archive.is/9uksf

"I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant's case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition (for which Ms Hogarth provides evidence) that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women....

However, the subjective concerns of women prisoners are not the only concerns which the Defendant had to consider in developing the policies: he also had to take into account the rights of transgender women in the prison system."

This is absolutely obscene. I can't think of anything else to say. It's just utterly obscene

Disgusted with the result, I hope there’s an appeal

Of all the things that have gone on, this in the legal team's press release really stood out

This is the first time the
High Court has considered the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act

What a ridiculous situation. 11 years of this legal thingy being used every day everywhere, and no case law. In the mean time, stonewall and all the others stating that their interpretation is law - that tw have to always be admitted to female services -, but never actually taking a case to court to demonstrate this.

Obscene is the right word.

I am just so so so angry, sad, I could cry.

Women are nothing but Canon fodder for men.

I hate this fucking world right now

I'm absolutely aghast.

I can't even bring myself to write anymore.

From the judgement:

"There is no statutory requirement that male and female prisoners be accommodated in different establishments, but rule 12(1) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides that –
"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

The population of a female prison may include persons who were born female and identify as such (referred to in this judgment as "women"); persons who were born male but identify as female, whether or not they have undergone any alteration of physical characteristics ("transgender women"); and transgender women who have obtained a GRC ("transgender women with a GRC"). It is important to the Claimant's case to note that both a transgender woman and a transgender woman with a GRC may retain male genitalia."

"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

I am actually shocked by those prison rules because the inequality is already baked in in 1999. 'Women' vs males. Not female.

Were women's prisons never intended to be single sex? Where had transvestite or transsexual prisoners been housed before? Was it just that in 1999 they could not see where we would be 20 years later and the word "woman" was not contended ground? Were Press for Change consulted?

This is pre GRA so there was no legal reason for the fudge of language.

The judgement looks like it needs a good Barrakering, doesn't it?

So, to be clear, our current prison rules say Female-and-criminal-men-who-say-they-feel-like-women-and-men-with-the-paraphilia-of-transvestic-fetish-disorder-and-the-tiny-group-of-males-who-the-state-say-can-legally-call-themselves-female-even-though-they-still-may-have-penises prisoners shall normally (and what's with the normally? irrespective of their crime?) be kept separate from male prisoners.

Maybe the 1999 prison rules is the place to start change?

@OvaHere

it's been long known that cross dressing is a paraphilia very frequently co-morbid to sex offenders.

Yep. It's verboten to say so now but the facts remain.

This is what institutional misogyny looks like.

well the risk clearly wasn't managed???? A woman was sexually assaulted. There was a complete FAILURE in the risk to be managed.

I think the words “disgusting” and “obscene” as used by other posters are spot on. It just shows where “be kind” got us.

@GromblesofGrimbledon

"I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant's case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition (for which Ms Hogarth provides evidence) that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women....

However, the subjective concerns of women prisoners are not the only concerns which the Defendant had to consider in developing the policies: he also had to take into account the rights of transgender women in the prison system."

Jesus fuck.

Yes, yes, it's all accepted that you're traumatized and at risk by being locked up with rapists.

But the men have rights, women. You need to learn to cope.

You evil fucking shitstains.

I think this illustrates a key problem with the approach of challenging policies using judicial review.

If the policy says "do a risk assessment on a case by case basis" then a court is just not going to find that that policy is unlawful.

The issue, then, isn't what the policy says, it's that when it comes to making that risk assessment, women's needs are given insufficient weight, if any weight at all. Unfortunately that's a far harder thing to challenge. As a society we seem to have an awful lot of tolerance for allowing women's rights to depend on the whims of an individual service provider. When that combines with the prevailing attitude that women need to shut their mouths and know their place, the outcome is never going to centre women.

Nothing really new to add, but why are men's feelings always more important than women's lives?

I think challenging through JR is difficult because the law recognises the legal fiction.

I wonder if the best approach is for women and girls who have been harmed in any way to start suing for damages, whether that is public bodies or private service providers.

Expensive though and would need crowdfunding