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

Surely there's no going back on the GRA now...? Am I just being pessimistic?

''Lawful if adequately risk assessed'' and yet the judge also lamented the poor quality of info on legal status, and also ignores the low rate of conviction for sexual crimes.

How can a prison claim they complete a risk assessment when they lack basic information about the prisoner?

If they haven't seen any ID that says the person is who they say they are, how did they get through the legal system in the first place? Has everyone assumed someone else checked?

@GromblesofGrimbledon

Surely there's no going back on the GRA now...? Am I just being pessimistic?

It needs to be abolished.

Marriage is legal. Pensions have been equalised.

Abolish it before it causes more harm.

@GromblesofGrimbledon

Surely there's no going back on the GRA now...? Am I just being pessimistic?

Bad laws are repealed all the time. Not saying we have a chance of this happening soon but who knows how things will look in 10 or 15 years time? I just have to cling on to the hope that eventually it will all be recognised for the absurdity it is and the mass harm being caused by the notion that sex can be changed.

It makes more sense to repeal the GRA than undermine or abolish the Equality Act, like Stonewall want to do.

@OvaHere

Here's hoping. We continue to chip away. The damage that's being done in the meantime... this is often how it is I know.

Let's hope we look back in our lifetime and think "what the fuck happened there?"

www.repealthegra.org/

[quote ThomasPenman]www.repealthegra.org/[/quote]

Thank you!

Well, I know fuckall about law, but we do operate largely on a case history basis, don't we?

Is that what the subtext is? This needs to be challenged in court, then, people need to sue?

They are saying the policies are capable of being operated lawfully, therefore the claim fails. But this makes no comment about the desirability of the policies.

I thought there was provision in the single sex exemptions to lawfully exclude males - irrespective of GRC - from female services.

So surely, policies are capable of being operated lawfully if they exclude all males - but the decision is not to because as usual women don’t count?

The outcome of the judicial review is yet another victory for the policy of not gathering information to learn what's actually going on. If you, as for example a government department, keep yourself in the dark, then you can write all kinds of guidance and if it gets challenged you can defend it on the basis of "but nobody really knows" meaning that a judge will not be able to say with certainty that what's been going on is unlawful. It is a highly effective approach.

If your main aim is to evade responsibility, then yes, nauticant.

I wonder if there are various decisions being made with one eye on possible future lawsuits.

This is grim and depressing.

One thing that I do think is important is that we now have accurate numbers on trans prisoners:
the most recent data published by the Defendant show that of 163 transgender prisoners, 81 have convictions for sexual offences, and 76 of those prisoners were held in the male estate at the time when the data were collected (shortly before the Care and Management Policy came into effect). That shows a prevalence of sexual offending by the known transgender prison population of over 50% compared to a prevalence of around 18% in male prisons generally and around 4% in female prisons generally.

It's really important that those numbers are now in the public domain in an official document, written by a judge. That can't be waved away as fear-mongering anymore.

Sadly, it looks like we're back to the same story we've heard before:

• the MoJ os not obligated to use the single sex exemptions
• women are likely to be harmed and suffer discrimination if they do not
• a text case evidencing actual harm is needed to force a policy change

Happy to donate to any relevant future crowdfunders!

On a side note, I'm also interested in this part:
Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women's prisons. Of these, it seems that 7 were committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC. It is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC.

90 sexual assaults were committed in women's prisons, but not by a transgender prisoner without a GRC. So who were they committed by?

• transgender prisoners with GRCs?
• natal female prisoners?
• male prison officers?

What is happening here? It doesn't make much sense ....

@OffYouGoNow

They are saying the policies are capable of being operated lawfully, therefore the claim fails. But this makes no comment about the desirability of the policies.

I thought there was provision in the single sex exemptions to lawfully exclude males - irrespective of GRC - from female services.

So surely, policies are capable of being operated lawfully if they exclude all males - but the decision is not to because as usual women don’t count?

That's what I asked further up the thread. My take on the situation is that MoJ are both operating a sex self-ID policy in prisons (thanks Stonewall!), AND choosing not to apply the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act (thanks Stonewall again!).

The judgement says that there's nothing in law that can actually strike out these policies if they are in principle capable of being operated in a way that is fair to women. (we know that in practice they are not but that is a different issue)

I see now that it was a very hard argument to win because it looks like you have to prove that the policy inevitably results in unreasonable erosion of women's human rights, not merely that it has the potential to.

It's very concerning, because if you can't make a knock-down argument for women prisoners' right to single-sex prisons, it suggests that there's potentially no female space that you can successfully make that argument for.

Becoming increasingly convinced that Parliament needs to revisit and clean up the mess it has made, I think. I don't take the view that this was what Parliament intended when it passed the GRA and the EA.

That shows a prevalence of sexual offending by the known transgender prison population of over 50% compared to a prevalence of around 18% in male prisons generally and around 4% in female prisons generally.

Wow. So to explain this either transgender people are more likely to be sex offenders or sex offenders are falsely claiming to be transgender.

Either way it's worrying and need to be investigated

@InvisibleDragon

This is grim and depressing.

One thing that I do think is important is that we now have accurate numbers on trans prisoners:
the most recent data published by the Defendant show that of 163 transgender prisoners, 81 have convictions for sexual offences, and 76 of those prisoners were held in the male estate at the time when the data were collected (shortly before the Care and Management Policy came into effect). That shows a prevalence of sexual offending by the known transgender prison population of over 50% compared to a prevalence of around 18% in male prisons generally and around 4% in female prisons generally.

It's really important that those numbers are now in the public domain in an official document, written by a judge. That can't be waved away as fear-mongering anymore.

Sadly, it looks like we're back to the same story we've heard before:

• the MoJ os not obligated to use the single sex exemptions
• women are likely to be harmed and suffer discrimination if they do not
• a text case evidencing actual harm is needed to force a policy change

Happy to donate to any relevant future crowdfunders!

On a side note, I'm also interested in this part:
Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women's prisons. Of these, it seems that 7 were committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC. It is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC.

90 sexual assaults were committed in women's prisons, but not by a transgender prisoner without a GRC. So who were they committed by?

• transgender prisoners with GRCs?
• natal female prisoners?
• male prison officers?

What is happening here? It doesn't make much sense ....

It seems surprising that this information has been recorded about the number of sexual attacks in women’s prisons but nobody thought to record who was carrying out the attacks.

It couldn’t be that this information has been recorded but the MoJ doesn’t want to tell us who the offenders are?

Would that information be available from a FOI request?

@PronounssheRa

That shows a prevalence of sexual offending by the known transgender prison population of over 50% compared to a prevalence of around 18% in male prisons generally and around 4% in female prisons generally.

Wow. So to explain this either transgender people are more likely to be sex offenders or sex offenders are falsely claiming to be transgender.

Either way it's worrying and need to be investigated

And either way we don't want those people in our spaces!

No wonder there's a push to hide the crime stats.

It seems surprising that this information has been recorded about the number of sexual attacks in women’s prisons but nobody thought to record who was carrying out the attacks

It couldn’t be that this information has been recorded but the MoJ doesn’t want to tell us who the offenders are?

Is it possible to do a FOI, anyone know?

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.

or sex offenders are falsely claiming to be transgender
And of course this is the TRAs’ argument, yet at the same time any policy that isn’t self-ID is literal violence and fascist?

@TedImgoingmad

The harms perpetuated will grow bigger and bigger, some women will probably die. Then eventually one day it will be finally to big to ignore and then the handwringing will begin along with all the op-eds about 'how could this happen?' and 'lessons learned'.

You forgot to add, @OvaHere , the inevitable, "Why didn't the feminists do anything about it?"

This comment reminded me of the Pastor Nielmoller poem:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

?

Niemöller has a complex history. He was a staunch supporter of Hitler, even when he acquired some (self-interested) reservations and his change of mind and heart had a protracted history.

www.hmd.org.uk/resource/pastor-martin-niemoller-hmd-2021/

Wikipedia entry is decent and should open despite the special characters: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

Not read the whole thread.

Does this mean that any female who identifies as a man, whether or not they have had any hormones, surgery etc, and whether or not they have a GRC.

Are they automatically put in male prisons?

I bet they aren't.

And if they are (!!??) then there needs to be action around that as well.