Big update on Rape Crisis legal challenge

[IamSarah]

I know many of you have been waiting for an update so first of all thank you for your patience and the many messages of support.

I am suing Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service, as it refused to offer a single sex women’s group in addition to the mixed sex women’s groups. By mixed sex I mean inclusive of any males who identify as women.

I’ve been granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and it was submitted to Brighton County Court today.

I am being represented by law firm Didlaw and my Barrister is Naomi Cunningham (Chair of Sex Matters). So far they have acted pro bono which I am incredibly grateful for as it has taken a lot of time. The team are confident I have a good case but this is unchartered territory for women’s rights.

Many of you have very kindly offered to be involved and help with gardening. I don’t think I’m allowed to share details on here so please go to my Twitter page http://twitter.com/SarahSurviving/ which has all the info in a pinned post.

Of you’re not on Twitter feel free to send me a DM for more information on how you can help the case. Any publicity you can give the crowd funder would really help.

Thank you everyone.

Sarah x

Worrying conversation on Twitter if true.

twitter.com/LardShugga/status/1756446669732765906

"Sarah Summrrs asked me what I was doing for rape victims in response to my thread raising concerns about the implications of her upcoming court case, she's raised £20,000 over her target.

I just wonder if the people who donated understand what they are paying for because she's quite honest about not wanting to deny dangerous men use of the service.

I approached the same person who supports SS in 2019 and told them I was willing to sue SN , but I wasn't the right sort of victim for them, thats why i'm certain this is a deterkined rffort to get trans rights in law

Her target was£75,000 and it,s now over 90,000

If she wins she will only secure 1 single sex therapy session for women, a compromise will be written in law, that every rape crisis will have to abide by , she could ask to restore it to a female only service how it was intended to be, but chooses not to

I don't know , i'm not even sure what she means by one single sex therapy session because I imagine that's standard with councelling anyway. maybe she means one single sex support group. I just know it's not good enough

I was forced to wait in the same room as a huge bloke in a wig, which put me off using their support group.thats why I know sarah's aim won,t stop the further trauma of women"

Maybe Sarah can clarify as this is doing the rounds?

I don't think it's ever been an attempt to return the RCS to being female only in entirety, only to ensure that women who need single sex provisions within the RCS to be able to access it are provided for equally to all other women and male/NB people that the service has so radically redirected to provide for. And not treated as social pariahs who are a threat to non female people for needing sex based female only accessible services to be a part of provision. And it would be hard to deny the reasonability of this. It would seem to be - to my understanding anyway - that it is requiring that these services, which are tax payer funded, are equally accessible to all women as they have been made to TQ people.

Am I getting this wrong?

So it is only a case of ensuring that there is a designated single sex session, within a mixed sex (but labelled women) environment?

that it is requiring that these services, which are tax payer funded, are equally accessible to all women as they have been made to TQ people.

It depends on what is meant by equally accessible. Is providing one penis free session a week/month providing an equally accessible service?

I would imagine it would have to be equal in amount and quality to the provision offered to the other groups, which included a mixed sex designated women's group, a men's group, and an LGBT group to not be discriminatory.

Whomever that person is they really don't understand what they are talking about @ProseccoStormtrooper.
The case is a sex discrimination case, its saying that because sn doesn't have any single sex support groups at all they are discrimination against women. When she wins (which she will as its a clear cut case) all rape crisis centres will be forced by law to provide atleast 1 single sex support group (which is 1 more than most have now) and single sex counciling services (which Edinburgh rape crisis and rape crisis Scotland don't) . Then when the single female only group is overwhelmed, whilst the mixed sex womens group is like a ghost town we will have another clear case of sex discrimination.
What we are taking part in is a war of attrition not a 1 and done battle, if we go for separation now odds are we will lose and make things worse. We have to prove in crt that we are reasonable in our points and that we have tried everything else 1st. That person does not come across as reasonable nor does she sound like someone who could withstand the onslaught that a case like this would/will/has brought to Sarah.

"When she wins (which she will as its a clear cut case) all rape crisis centres will be forced by law to provide atleast 1 single sex support group (which is 1 more than most have now) and single sex counciling services (which Edinburgh rape crisis and rape crisis Scotland don't)."

I'm pretty sure that's not how this works. Winning won't create a precedent unless she loses and goes to a higher court, and even then I'm not sure charities can be obliged to provide services in such a way, especially if it contravenes their mission statement.

A more useful case would be against the commissioners to oblige them to ensure that women only services are actually commissioned.

But even then, how can staff actually enforce this when it's so easy to change sex markers on official documents? Without removing this ability, and repealing the GRA, the problem remains.

"That person does not come across as reasonable nor does she sound like someone who could withstand the onslaught that a case like this would/will/has brought to Sarah."

The wrong sort of victim? This is exactly the sort of argument used to avoid prosecuting abusers and rapists. She's an 'unreliable witness' etc etc.

Well thanks for twisting my words into victim blaming.
Whilst I understand and appreciate her trauma the language that she is using is not the language of a reasonable person but a deeply traumatised woman. Because of the way crts treat women (particularly rape survivors) and the emotional consequences of being put through the wringer before, during and after a case that involves gender identity, yes we need a survivor to front this case who has the emotional reserves to take this case to the highest crt if necessary without incurring further emotional harm, and quite frankly this person doesn't sound like she could at this time, perhaps when she is further down her recovery journey she will be able to take this to the next level once we have established the requirements for having any single sex group

A more useful case would be against the commissioners to oblige them to ensure that women only services are actually commissioned.

It would have been a less ambiguous strategy.

Is that the case?

So one group women only. One group women only, except it includes men who identify as women, but it won't be called mixed sex? In order to validate the men?

These issues always need to be nailed down with a whole range of hammers, because a loophole, any bloody loophole, that forces women to validate men will be found.

My understanding is that at the moment TRA's (and by extension service providers) argue that the level which services have to meet to allow 'proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim' for single sex services are so high that almost nothing meets that level. Even services which are explicitly mentioned in the EQA 2010 as examples of SSE from which even those with a GRC can be excluded. If Sarah wins the case, it would set a precedent that such SSE services would meet that level and make it difficult for them to argue that they are reasonable in refusing to provide such a service.

I just want a case where the lying has to stop. Where mixed sex has to be called mixed sex.

I hope that a the gym case being brought means that companies and organisations can't just change the meaning of commonly understood words for their users anymore. Apart from anything else, what next if they can change the word 'woman' to mean something that most people won't understand... 'well we wrote 1% interest but that actually means 50% interest because we've changed the meaning of what 1% is commonly understood to mean - if you argue you're a bigot'.

I REALLY hope this case doesn't end up with one single sex only group once a month, because that will not be meeting the needs of raped women.

Great post. I work with someone who has been at the forefront of one the recent cases that have been talked about on here. She is a really robust individual who was able to cope with the pressures the case brought. She had an awful of support from her immediate circles and she had had time and therapeutic intervention to process what had happened. I think the opportunity to take the case forward came up at a time in her life when she could bear it. But it was still absolutely gruelling and filled with uncertainty. I couldn’t have done what she did. She would say herself that a lot of privilege contributed to making her a strong witness. But she’s used that privilege to the best of her ability and I am full of admiration for her.

All RCS already have an obligation not to discriminate against women. If Sarah wins then the law has not been changed at all; they must still not discriminate against women. What has changed is a court will have found that not providing single sex services discriminated against Sarah on the basis of sex and all RCS had better look to their provision or they risk being sued too. Sarah may accept one session a week but if that is all they offer then they still be acting in a discriminatory manner and still at risk of being sued.

perhaps when she is further down her recovery journey she will be able to take this to the next level

You have to bring a case within six months of the act you are complaining about or you are time-barred

So one group women only. One group women only, except it includes men who identify as women, but it won't be called mixed sex? In order to validate the men?

It would appear so.

I thought the basis of Sarah's case was that by refusing to offer any genuinely women-only support groups, Survivors' Network is discriminating against women. So, if she wins (and I think this is the first case of its kind so hard to predict), presumably SN will have to offer at least one women-only group.

I don't see how anyone could launch a case which aimed to stop a charity offering any "inclusive" groups. And as other posters have said, this case is in one of the lower courts (the County Court?) so won't set a precedent.

So I think the Twitter post linked to above is utterly wrong. Happy to be corrected if anyone knows more than I do!

From what I remember, Sarah has been clear from the start, and was with the RCS, she had no wish to interfere with the successfully running groups in place of which men have three separate choices of the one that best suits them. She only wanted an accessible female only option to be available in addition to the one mixed sex one available to women.

The reason for this being denied was that, to paraphrase, again I may be misremembering, was that this would be too upsetting to TQ service users. Even for this to be provided in a different building where TQ users would not have to be aware it was taking place.

Sarah, very happy to be corrected.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think reposting the thoughts of some random twitter user to then demand that "Sarah" responds to something that doesn't even exist, is in any way acceptable.

Whatever her court case is about, whatever the outcome, that is her business and those who have chosed to support her.

On what earth do you live that you think you have the right to tell her she should be doing something different.

Quite honestly if you think whatever it is you think she isn't doing is so important, start your own legal case.

I have never seen anyone accuse any of the women who have taken employers to court re the right to express sex based rights, demanding that they turn it into some overarching case about employment.

The arrogance and apparent ignorance of "Grannys chin" is astounding. Why would you think these tweets are worth taking seriously.

Except as a good example of why twitter is should a waste of time.

A cess pit for egotists - and interestingly one of the least used social media platforms.

Personally out of respect to this thread and Sarah, if I had posted such an ill judged demand I would ask MNHQ to delete and make an apology.

From Sarah's crowd justice page

im suing Brighton’s Rape Crisis Centre Survivors’ Network for discrimination because it refused to provide a women-only peer support group.

I am a survivor of sexual abuse. When I was a child, I was abused by a family friend. Later, in my twenties, I was again raped by a man I knew. In both cases, I felt tricked and coerced by men, and I still have trouble trusting any men. I believe that every woman deserves the option of a safe, female-only space to heal from the trauma of rape and sexual abuse.

Survivors’ Network
The Survivors’ Network is the only rape crisis centre in Sussex. It receives funding from a number of public bodies, including the Brighton and Hove and East Sussex local authorities, The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, NHS, and the Ministry of Justice.

My experience
I sought help from the Survivors’ Network when circumstances meant I would have to come into contact with the man who had raped me in my local area. When I first joined a Peer Support Group run by the Survivors’ Network, I was relieved to be able to share my story with women who had lived similar experiences. My first few sessions were helpful and supportive, and I continued to attend weekly.

This changed in September 2021 when I arrived at the group and was surprised to see someone who appeared to be a man. I left the session feeling shaken and upset.

I emailed the Survivors’ Network to I explain how I felt, and to suggest that one of the new peer support groups the charity was planning to run could be for survivors who were born female.

But the Survivors’ Network ruled out any change of policy. Instead, they suggested I be added to the 2 year waiting list for 1:1 support and told me to find another service in the city, knowing they are the only RC centre for Sussex.

My claim
The law that makes it possible to offer single-sex services is expressed in terms of permission, not obligation. My central argument is that the Survivors’ Network’s “trans inclusive” policy is indirectly discriminatory: that is, it puts women at a particular disadvantage compared to men, and can’t be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. My lawyers say I have a good claim which I am more likely to win than lose – but lawyers can’t predict the outcome of cases with certainty, so there’s also a very real risk that I could lose and have to pay costs.

On 22 April 2022 I was granted court orders that allow me to bring my claim
anonymously.

Why this matters
It is impossible for many female survivors to heal from trauma at the hands of men in a mixed sex space. It is impossible to share feelings around being manipulated and coerced by men and speak freely about male entitlement and privilege in a group with males in it, even if they identify as women.

Some female survivors have a trauma response to males which they cannot help. No amount of ‘education’ from trans rights activists can change this trauma response.
The importance of my case is not confined to rape counselling services. There are many spaces in which the sexes should be separated – changing rooms, hospital beds and domestic violence shelters. If they are not, women are simply unsafe.

Funding
I am not in this for the money. If I am awarded any compensation, I will donate it to a VAWG charity that supports single sex spaces. To me this case is about protecting women’s rights to safe spaces.

I issued my claim on 29 April 2022. My lawyers have acted pro bono up to this point, but I cannot fight the case to a conclusion without funding.

I need to raise enough money to pay my own legal costs, and to cover the risk that I’ll lose and have to pay the other side’s costs too. People often get “after the event” insurance against the costs risk, but it’s not possible in a case like mine where, even if I win, the financial compensation is bound to be modest.

On reaching this initial target I shall then need to raise further funds to pay my legal fees and any costs that may be awarded against me should my claims be unsuccessful.

Transparency
I will publish all the information about the case that I am able to as soon as I reasonably can, by way of updates to this crowdfunding page.

.

Her target might have been crowdjustice £75k but that doesn’t mean that is her costs. If she has to appeal it is likely to cost considerably more.

People know how these things work now and only give if they are happy to.

These cases have really opened my eyes to exactly how expensive it is to go to court and how that expense must be an insurmountable barrier to justice for many.

I didn't read the post as being as aggressive as some. I certainly dont think it needs to be removed and an apology issued!

It is good to get a realistic idea of the possible outcomes of court cases and the implication on other services which might be working in womens favour at the moment. Not all court cases will benefit all women.

"The arrogance and apparent ignorance of "Grannys chin" is astounding. Why would you think these tweets are worth taking seriously."

Why are you assuming she's 'ignorant'? Have you considered that she (and others) might have information that you are not privy to?

Anyone crowdfunding should absolutely expect scrutiny of their motives and the legitimacy of their case.