80 new rape courts

[CassieMaddox]

Labour pledging this as part of their manifesto commitment to reduce VAWG.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/labour-pledges-80-new-courts-in-bid-to-tackle-backlog-crisis

So pleased to see an actual tangible action targeted at something that will help women. I'm looking forward to seeing what else is in their manifesto now.

But they do exist, according to Sunak.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sunak-150-judges-ready-to-hear-rwanda-appeals/5119444.article

5000 sitting days available immediately., apparently. And all the money the government is currently putting into training people to man Rwanda flights, detaining refugees and throwing money at Rwanda could perhaps be diverted to paying lawyers, prison warders etc.

They exist if you take them away from other matters. Making already hideous backlogs worse. And you'll note the comment that it's for the courts to decide how to deploy judges, not the PM.

How often does this actually happen in practice?

Don't you think that all the rapists and violent men who make no claim to be women need to be locked up? Would you really refuse to vote for a party that aimed to make that happen, purely on the offchance that they might not also make it happen for transwomen and might in your mind also not prevent them from being locked up with women?

Does that mean they should not be given the chance to make it viable? One thing that is for sure is that the Conservatives have not will even to try.

They should be honest from the outset to say that it's a long term plan and set out how they're going to achieve it. Else it's simply pie in the sky given the state of the justice system right now, both criminal and civil.

I live this day in, day out, and if they want to convince me, they need to do more than announce a policy which, right now, is unworkable, without setting out the actual plan as to HOW they'll do it.

not just that but its such a bizarre thing to keep repeating?

"transgender women who've been convicted of sexual or violent offences – or who retain male genitalia – cannot be held in a women's prison unless in truly exceptional circumstances.”
Ban on trans women in female prisons extended - Raab - BBC News

anyone arguing that even ATTEMPTING to get higher rates for conviction on rape cases is not a positive thing is crazy. How can you call yourself a feminist when your response to this article is only about TW? Whatboutism in full effect.

Whether you are GRC or believe TWAW, we should ALL be prioritizing underdoing the effective decriminalization of Rape.

Clearly pay rates are going to have to go up, and that will need to happen whichever government comes in, because otherwise the criminal bar and solicitor crime firms will disappear and we will then be unable to appoint judges with any expertise in criminal law. It doesn't need a magic money tree, we have been able to pay much more sensible legal aid rates in the not so distant past, and contrary to popular belief lawyers in this field aren't expecting to make fortunes. The Tories keep telling us they are going to make tax cuts, and they're the ones who actually have access to the Treasury books, which at least suggests we aren't devoid of money.

What puzzles me about this thread is the total defeatism everyone displays. Simply saying "There's no money" isn't the end of any given policy proposal, otherwise we wouldn't have an NHS, social care system, state funded education, basically anything state funded at all.

Where have they said they don't think it's worth the effort to deal with the obvious issues?

It's not as if this is a policy that is 100% impossible, which seems to be the line around here. I could understand it if they were promising magical fairy dust for all, but what they are proposing is something that clearly needs substantial funding which in turn needs a re-prioritising of what government funding is spent on and, quite possible, raising further funds. What makes all of that something that "clearly won't work"?

Then set out how. They must have a plan, surely? Else why announce it. Just tell us what it is.

Criminal solicitors and barristers shouldn't be expected to be paid way less than their training deserves.

And tbh, if you'd worked in any form of litigation over the last ten years, you'd be thinking that this is pie in the sky too.

The government has done its very best to try to make the entire system totally unworkable. So yes, I am jaded by it and want a concrete plan setting out, not just a supposed pie in the sky policy. Else it's all just words.

Doubting the possibility of this policy, as outlined, being implementable and subsequently effective, is not defeatism.

All your responses, Scruffily, boil down to a simple assumption/hope/trust that Labour can succeed despite the issues that have been pointed out. So, you vote for it. I won't. And, no I'm not voting Conservative either.

Can't it be fixed at the same time?

If you really believe that it's pointless for any government to start a long term initiative because they might not be in power to see it through, that's the route to rapid decline. If, for instance, Attlee and Bevan had believed that we would have no NHS.

If these proposals start working so that, for instance, the backlog for rape prosecutions falls rapidly, does the fact that they may not be fully brought into fruition within 5 years mean they aren't worth trying? As noted, Starmer has a good track record in dealing with crimes against women, so it seems to me entirely reasonable to believe he means to make this one work. There is nothing to suggest that Labour intends to concentrate on this at the expense of all the other initiatives you suggest.

Yes, it does. Describing them as men or women is a small part of the investigation and identification process, and I give the police credit for ensuring that descriptions of suspects are as full and accurate as possible.

So what, if anything, do you think any government should do about this? Do you think we should just assume that there is nothing that can be done anywhere, ever, and give up? Or is it worth giving a chance to someone with a track record for actually working on behalf of female victims in the justice system?

Yes, that's one way, provided that those in charge comply with their legal duties to keep the people concerned safe. Or you could have separate prisons for trans people. Or separate wings. None of it is impossible.

Separate wings in the estate for their sex would work. They should never be in the wrong-sex estate, as things can and do go wrong. I doubt we're going to build trans prisons!

You've ignored the fact that Sunak claims to have achieved just that for the Rwanda courts. That's one tranche of judges and lawyers available for reassignment now. There is nothing that says only barristers can represent either side.

Assuming he's lying, which of course is reasonable, sure it won't be a quick fix. Is that a valid reason for not starting the process of achieving that fix?

They don't have to be picked out of thin air. Is that how you imagine judges and other lawyers are recruited currently?

Yes, it will take investment. What is wrong with investing?

I answered this ages and ages ago, so haven't ignored it. In fact, I answered YOU on this point previously as well. Yes, he's lying. No, there isn't judicial capacity (unless you make the backlogs elsewhere worse).

I didn't say barristers can't work for both sides. I said there aren't enough on either side.

You haranguing me isn't going to magic up the judges or barristers either. And you won't change my opinion as to what Labour needs to do to show that this is viable. And, even if they do, I'm still not voting for them or the bloody Tories before some fuckwit goes back down that road.

How many times do I have to answer this point before it sinks in?

Labour needs to set out how they are going to achieve this policy to make it viable. Not just announce it as a policy as if it's immediately workable. It's not workable. It'll take years and a lot of money. So I want a fully-costed plan please. Else it's just bollocks.

It is indeed for the courts to decide how to deploy judges. So if Labour are able to fix the system so that more violent criminals are being arrested and brought before the courts, the courts will have to deploy judges accordingly. In doing that they will have to prioritise, and it's not exactly difficult to work out that getting dangerous criminals off the street comes ahead of, say, commercial disputes (which the government wants to steer towards arbitration anyway).

A government can help that process by, for instance, incentivising more lawyers to go into legal aid work - which I suspect is on Starmer's agenda anyway, given his background. Goodness knows, current pay rates are so pathetic that it wouldn't be at all difficult to improve on them. It's not an immediate fix but, I ask again, is that really a reason to dismiss the whole thing out of hand?

I'm sure they will. But until they actually get their hands on the books to see what sort of a mess the Conservatives have met, they would be incredibly irresponsible to try. One thing is for certain, you really cannot say that it's impossible.

I haven't bloody dismissed it out of hand. What I've said fucking numerous times is that until such time as they set out a plan on how to achieve it, it's bollocks. Which it is without being fully-costed and set out in detail.

Where are these criminals going in conviction? No prison space, remember? We need a fully-costed plan to resolve that too.

I haven't said it's impossible. Comprehension clearly failing. I've said again and again and again that it needs setting out in detail with a costed plan. You badgering on here isn't going to change my mind or opinion.