Revised guidelines - exceptions for compelling pronoun use in court

[FatAgainItsLettuceTime]

I've just seen that the Equal Treatment Bench Book was reissued as a revised version on 14th July to provide exceptions so that victims don't have to use preferred pronouns of violent offenders.

Feels like July 2022 is the month of people seeing sense.

www.judiciary.uk/announcements/july-2022-interim-revision-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book-issued/

All the way down in chapter 12 in the 'Treatment of trans people in court' section

Mmm... Gender assigned at birth?

That's a small step. I suppose there was the realisation that all the self interested legal professionals who contributed to the initial directive were actually promoting perjury and lying under oath?

I'm still unhappy that the ever growing number of male born sex offenders who claim to be women get to be called she - especially when their crimes are against women and children.

Indeed. How depressing.

Otoh, 'Artificial steps' is about right.

If the effect is that victims of sexual and other violence don't have to lie in court, that's a good thing. They never should have been compelled to, and everyone who was involved in that happening should be ashamed of themselves.

This is the comment I posted regarding this on the Tavistock thread:

I've only skim read it because it is very long but there is still a whole host of tedious gender ideology waffle in there and, yes, there are numerous mentions of Stonewall.

The section on rape victims is interesting though, also they have admitted (not in so many words but that is the jist) that women offenders are treated more harshly and sentenced to imprisonment more readily than men on the same first offence.

That is definitely better. I should probably read the whole thing but cannot quite face it.

Thank goodness. Some common sense is trickling in.

Is the same anonymity given to other defendants who have changed their names? Or is this a privilege extended only to a certain caste of defendant?

There's an interesting Twitter thread here reviewing the bits that still need to be changed or have been incorrectly updated

twitter.com/rebeccamkbull/status/1549060411063926789

Could be worse - at least it didn't say 'sex assigned at birth'. Given gender is a social construct, I guess it is assigned at birth - or whenever the baby's sex is determined...

That twitter thread's damning - the judiciary completely in hock to Stonewall and parroting contested beliefs and gender woowoo. Thank heavens recent cases suggest that some judges remain uncaptured by the trans extremists.

Well good!

The whole idea of "outing" a trans person is a bit ridiculous, another example of hijacking language used for homosexuality. Lots of references to what to do if a person's trans identity is not public. It's entirely possible for someone's sexuality to be a secret, whereas its really fucking obvious when someone is trans.

Thanks for sharing OP, really interesting.

I have a court case coming up and I am thinking about what pronouns I will be expected to use.

The person I will be referring to joined a women's rape crisis meeting.

'I felt uncomfortable sharing my experiences of male violence with her' sounds unreasonable.

'I felt uncomfortable sharing my experiences of male violence with him' less so.

It still feels a bit like the whole " having to disclose abuse in order to obtain what should be perfectly reasonable and was seen as such til ken kicked off" thing.

I would be happy to be forced to lie about what I saw even if we were only talking about shoplifting

IamSarah's case shows the limitiation of this guideline. The transwoman wasn't the rapist, so it might not be deemed applicable, but if so she'll be compelled to take those 'artificial steps' which risk interfering with her ability to give evidence. It may be that she'll have to avoid pronouns.

VestofAbsurdity - women offenders are treated more harshly and sentenced to imprisonment more readily than men on the same first offence

Where did you see that being suggested. I've looked at the document but don't see anything that gives the 'jist' for this. Ta.

This is good news, but I see that the guideline uses that confusing language, ‘gender assigned at birth’.

They should say pronouns not corresponding to those related to the sex at birth.

It is as if a detached and moveable gender identity is now legally established as a fact, with sex being irrelevant.

As I'm a nice person I've copied and pasted the relevant paragraphs here @sawdustformypony :

115. Baroness Hale DBE said in her 2005 Longford Trust Lecture:

‘It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted
in some very unequal treatment for the women and girls who appear before
the criminal justice system. Simply put, a male-ordered world has applied to
them its perceptions of the appropriate treatment for male offenders…. The
criminal justice system could … ask itself whether it is indeed unjust to
women.’

118. On average, female offenders commit less serious offences than male
offenders, often committing non-violent low-level but persistent offences such as shoplifting Between 2007 and 2017, 130 women (compared to 27 men) were
sentenced to prison for their children’s truancy. Most women entering prison
have committed a non-violent offence (82% in 2018).

119. 22% of women in prison have no previous convictions, compared to 14% of
men. Women are far more likely than men to serve short sentences. Over
three-quarters of female offenders in 2017 received sentences under 12
months, and, 57% received sentences up to and including three months. In
2018, 62% of custodial sentences for women were for six months or less.

120. Women are also more likely to be remanded in custody. In 2017, 43% of women entering prison did so on remand, less than half of whom went on to receive a prison sentence.

@IamSarah the footnote (8) on p 338 of the revised Benchbook would appear to be relevant:
All witnesses must be enabled to give their best evidence. YJCEA 1999 s16-17 and DAA 2021 s63-64, in the context of special measures, recognise that victims of violent and sexual offences may have difficulty giving evidence.

Although the language is written in terms of someone giving evidence about an attack, I would have thought it equally relevant when giving evidence about a traumatic situation, even if the other person did not mean to cause the trauma.

well it's an improvement...

@VestofAbsurdity As I'm a nice person I've copied and pasted the relevant paragraphs

Great thanks for that. I'll get back to you later.

Thank you for spotting this, it is really useful to know.

It's something I need to talk through with my lawyers before giving evidence.

IamSarah Hi I'm a Magistrate and my understanding is that court staff (ie Judge/Chairperson and list caller) might be expected to use preferred pronouns as a courtesy, but people giving evidence are not expected to. You need to give honest factual evidence under oath after all!

The reason a witness is required to attend court and give evidence isn't relevant imo. Women have been compelled to lie under oath, and I just don't see how that has ever been acceptable.

Why can't we use honest factual language all the time, if we so choose?
"Courtesty" only seems to extend in one direction, I think.