Guilty verdict in Brianna Ghey case

[RoyalCorgi]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/brianna-ghey-found-guilty-murder

Not a surprise - it felt very clear-cut.

In fact, as someone who is not attempting to argue, either way, whether this was or was not a hate crime (and is simply pointing out that is yet to be determined),

You're not "pointing out" anything to me. I'm fully aware that the judge may rule that it's transphobia in some sense, possibly reacting to the people on social media who see any attack on a person with a trans identity as hate crime regardless of the motive. I believe that would be a mistake, and make the conviction less secure.

But you and PaperWalkAndTalk did appear to both be referring to me during your exchange between 22:51 and 23:20, which I think was unfair, and you have continued to try and persuade me that this was not a hate crime, which is unnecessary as it’s irrelevant to the sole point I have made - that it is not accurate to say the justice system has already ruled that it wasn’t one.

Yes, I was not pointing out anything to you. I pointed out to PaperWalkAndTalk that she was wrong to say the question had already been determined by the justice system. I have no idea why you’ve felt the need to repeatedly engage me if you already knew and agreed that. Perhaps we can draw a line under it?

II have no idea why you’ve felt the need to repeatedly engage me if you already knew and agreed that. Perhaps we can draw a line under it?

Because I don't think the primary motive is transphobia, because I've followed the case all the way through via the live court reports, and it irritated me that you bustled in with your Independent article, TRA propaganda, claiming a superior analysis.

Happy to draw a line though.

You might as well cite Pink News.

So far as I can tell, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for certain, separate offences where they are motivated, in part, by racial or religious prejudice, but there aren’t similar offences for other types of hate crimes (like homophobic or transphobic ones).

For transphobic crimes, it’s just the Sentencing Act that applies (i.e. applying for an uplift which, as you say, sounds to be what has happened here).

But again just for the record:

I'm fully aware that the judge may rule that it's transphobia in some sense, possibly reacting to the people on social media who see any attack on a person with a trans identity as hate crime regardless of the motive. I believe that would be a mistake, and make the conviction less secure.

I ‘bustled in’ with an Independent article because it contained a lengthy quote from Ursula Doyle explaining, procedurally, when the determination as to whether or not a hate crime would be made.

You do seem rather invested in the idea that it's possibly a hate crime, without much knowledge of the evidence, as you yourself admitted.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to stress this but it doesn’t make much sense to me.

The conviction has already occurred. The only question left is sentencing. Perhaps the court will order an uplift in sentencing if they think it was a hate crime, or perhaps they won’t.

If they do determine that it was a hate crime and the sentence is uplifted, then that uplift could presumably be appealed, but I don’t see how that could have any effect on the underlying conviction. Can you please explain?

No, I literally just pointed out that it hasn’t been determined yet and you’ve been peppering me with largely unrelated messages ever since, including agreeing to draw a line under it only to then direct two more messages at me without me having responded to you.

My comments have been broadly confined to the stage we are at, procedurally. If I had an agenda to push, no doubt I’d better acquaint myself with the evidence so that I could try to argue it.

If they do determine that it was a hate crime and the sentence is uplifted, then that uplift could presumably be appealed, but I don’t see how that could have any effect on the underlying conviction. Can you please explain?

Because of the chatter on social media that the defendants were motivated by "transphobia". This has hardly been acknowledged during the trial as relevant based on the evidence which suggests that these two children just wanted to kill someone and it could have been another person on their list.

But the judge has already had to publicly call out Jolyon Maugham KC, trans activist lawyer, for alleging on Twitter that transphobia was the motive. So there is a basis to claim that the trial wasn't fair because of the amount of prejudiced social media chatter, and especially if a dubious sentencing decision was made because of vocal people claiming transphobia had occurred.That's why online speculation about motive is discouraged.

I don't think a sentencing uplift in and of itself is necessarily the same thing. It could reflect that Brianna was a vulnerable person targeted because of that. I think that's slightly different to it being badged a "hate crime".

I'm a little mystified as to why we have 12 pages worth of thread (and however large the previous one got - it got way too depressing to keep reading) desperately trying to stress that if a person with an evidenced hostility toward a particular demographic murders a member of said demographic, said hostility may not be their main motivation.

OK?

This doesn't change or excuse the use of dehumanising language; the societal factors that lead to the use of that language (it was learned from somewhere) and the wider attitude of normalised transphobia it betrays, and certainly not the act itself.

Nor does it excuse the 'plenty of kids are murdered' comments.

Nor does it excuse the way the life history of the victim and her motivations for transitioning are being dissected upthread. "Was she actually a vulnerable person (to being murdered by a transphobe) because she was trans? Or did she transition... because she was a vulnerable person?" Please don't pull that that on a grieving mother.

It's about the facts @ButterflyHatched. If the murder wasn't actually about Brianna being transgender, there's no reason to project onto it that it js. Lots of people share the view that you can't change sex, that a male is a man/boy. You can't assume that just because one of the killers spoke in a dehumanising way about one of the proposed victims (as they both did with others on their list) that the fact that specific person was murdered tells you that it was motivated by transphobia. Maybe that's the case, but it needs to be evidenced more strongly than that.

Jolyon Maugham’s tweets absolutely jeopardized the conviction (and, presumably, if evidence can be found that they did taint the jury, could still do so).

But sentencing is separate and whether or not an uplift will be ordered under section 66 of the Sentencing Act has no bearing on the security of the conviction.

Uplifts under section 66 are specifically for hate crimes based on sexual orientation or transgender identity, and nothing to do with any other vulnerabilities.

I think Doyle’s comments make it clear that a section 66 uplift is being, or will be, sought.

But sentencing is separate and whether or not an uplift will be ordered under section 66 of the Sentencing Act has no bearing on the security of the conviction.

What I meant was that a dubious "hate crime" sentence when the evidence was not really there, which doesn't seem to me or many others who have followed to be the case, may add to the basis which already exists that a potentially false narrative of transphobia influenced the outcome of the trial.

As I have said, a lot of people commenting see any crime against a transgender person to be a hate crime by default, but I don't subscribe to this view and it's not the law. It has to be evidenced.

Homophobia and Transphobia do seem to be treated somewhat differently to Racism and Religious Prejudice, but there are still lots of specific directions for CPS if they intend on applying for sentencing uplift, and CPS must inform the defence at a very early stage that sentencing uplift has been requested.

Looks like it gets complicated where there is more than one offender but evidence of prior hostility isn’t applicable to all offenders charged:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

IANAL but I suppose it could be argued that Boy Y has demonstrated prior hostility (in the text messages) towards transgender people but did not target Brianna (who was chosen by Girl X) and Girl X targeted Brianna but has not demonstrated prior hostility towards transgender people.

Whether Boy Y’s hostile texts are enough to uplift the sentence without evidence that Girl X targeted Brianna because she was motivated by hostility I have no clue (but I suspect the ‘joint enterprise’ aspect of the conviction complicates matters even further, beyond the usual difficulties posed by multiple defendants).

Perhaps the defence will present some compelling mitigating factors? Not that anything could lessen the awfulness of what they inflicted upon Brianna, but arguments for mitigation are an Integral part of the sentencing process, just as arguments for aggravation are.

Nor does it excuse the way the life history of the victim and her motivations for transitioning are being dissected upthread. "Was she actually a vulnerable person (to being murdered by a transphobe) because she was trans? Or did she transition... because she was a vulnerable person?" Please don't pull that that on a grieving mother.

You cant retrospectively go back in time and rewrite the Cass Review which raised massive questions about comorbidities across the board.

The ship has sailed on discussion of comorbidities. Sorry if that's inconvenient.

Thats a question that hangs over every kid who transitions regardless of whether they are murdered and remains forever for a mother. It is part of life generally in terms of whether you did the right thing for your child that exists without trans.

And every murder is full of 'what if' that'd said this or done that or things had been different. I don't see how this one is different.

Trying to make out that discussion of the case is somehow something that should be offlimits to the rest of the public when it's being politicised by trans activists and MPs is just 'wow'.

The idea that we must remain silent out of a sense of unquestioning respect or we are bad people is actually frightening. Condemning others for not sharing your opinion and castigating them for 'not caring' is quite frankly bollocks. And it's utterly tone deaf as to how this case was politicised from the off and who by.

Who thought of the grieving mother when they shouted 'transphobia' before arrests were even made?! But that's ok, because those are the 'right 'opinions to have.

Nor can you have a whinge at MNetters saying that comorbidities are a concern, when Cheshire Police say the following:

Detective chief superintendent Mike Evans, Cheshire Police’s head of crime, was asked by members of the press why he thinks the pair targeted Brianna.
He said: "So Brianna, I would say from her lifestyle her being an anxious child who stayed indoors a lot, was quite a vulnerable individual.

"She was very withdrawn, and she had a small social circle.

"The fact of her lack of confidence and anxiety, and the fact this was the first time she had been out for a while, I think made her quite vulnerable.

"That, and her being quite trusting of the girl involved who befriended her, I think made her relatively easy in terms of accessibility."

Before going on to say that it was because Brianna was trans but because she was vulnerable that made her the target rather than others on a list.

Every murder does raise the legitimate and worthwhile question of whether authorities could have made different decisions which might have safeguarded an individual better. In order to review whether institutions should change their behaviour or not.

Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't go through the normal process of this, 'because trans' and we should just on face value accept that trans exists in isolation and a vacuum separate from all else?

Are kids who identify as trans not worthy of the same level of reflection and review as any other group? Or is it an act of sacrilege to raise questions and talk about safeguarding in conjunction with trans?

God forbid the world and life in general should be complicated rather than black and white.

God forbid genuinely giving a shit, isn't packaged in a way that's always given the seal of political approval and justice and democracy isn't open to debate because that might just upset people and that's not very nice.

We live in a society where we understand that making things better involves talking about horrible things sometimes because if we don't we miss points that might cause further harms to others.

We can't change the past. We can be vigilant about how we go forward though.

I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed by people who don't understand this and told I'm a horrible person for not towing an approved line. It's not reflective of the truth. It's not reflective of how I have sympathy for the mother. It's reflective of the fact that I feel if we don't have these conversations more people will be at risk in a multitude of ways and it's trying to ensure others are helped to be less vulnerable.

Trans is not the only thing that matters. Not in this case and not in life in general.

I see that’s what you’re saying, I just don’t think your concern has a legal basis.

Wasn’t a boy targeted before Brianna? But he smelt a rat and didn’t go to the park with them? Seems like they weren’t too fussy about who it was, they just wanted to kill someone and were working down a list of possible victims. If Brianna hadn’t met them they’d have gone on to the next person?

The purpose of this thread, and all the deleted threads before it, is to play up all elements of the case other than transphobia and play down all suggestions of a transphobia element. It's evolved from "please don't speculate on a transphobic motive because you might prejudice the trial, let's speculate on other motives instead" to "it is very clear there was no transphobic motive so stop bringing it up". But it's been very important for people on this forum from day 1 that this must not be a transphobic murder and that's why we need threads about it on the Feminism board. #nodebate indeed.

A trans person was murdered by someone who said transphobic things about her, why would the trans community just shrug that off as some kind of coincidence? What kind of community would they be if they did that? If a person with other protected characteristic is murdered then we have a honest discussion about possible hateful motives, and people with that same protected characteristic are generally at the forefront of that, so I don't see why in this case the trans community should not discuss transphobia.

That's a ridiculous point that keeps coming up again and again as well. Yes transphobia obviously wasn't the sole motivation because there were other potential victims. I don't think anyone ever thought it was the SOLE motivation but if you hate someone for whatever-phobic reason and you kill them then it isn't rendered non-hateful just because there are other people you would happily also have killed!

Discuss all you want, but fortunately the decision making from a legal perspective on the legal position of whether a protected characteristic motivated the crime is made by (or should be made by) people without prejudice, bias, or preconceived notions who have access to all the available information.

This is why the concept of hate crimes is generally poor; it relies on someone trying to piece together the thought process of the perpetrator(s) to know whether the motive had extra oomph to it. In this particular case, what would a hate crime vs not a hate crime change?

I thought there was one victim?