Equal treatment bench book updated

[MissMaryBennett]

The equal treatment benchbook has been updated.

Significant changes are:

The chapter called 'gender' (mainly about issues that women experience) has been renamed sex.

There appear to be re-writes to the section on Trans people. I don't have a comparison, but for example, it now says:

19 It should be possible to work on the basis of a person’s chosen gender identity and their preferred name/pronouns, “he/she or they”, for most court and tribunal purposes, regardless of whether they have obtained legal recognition of their sex/gender by way of a GRC. Whilst in many cases it should be possible to use the trans person’s preferred name/pronouns, there will be situations where it is clearly inappropriate.

For example, a victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or assault by a trans person is likely to describe the perpetrator in accordance with the victim’s experience and perception of the events. To do otherwise would be likely to affect the quality of their evidence of traumatic events. In the end, it is for the judge to ensure that a proper balance is struck between respecting how a trans person wishes to be addressed and enabling a witness to give best evidence/recount events as accurately and truthfully as possible.

20. The court should always put witnesses in the position of giving their best evidence. As in any case (eg a fraud where a defendant has used multiple identities), witnesses should give evidence referring to the defendant in the way they knew that person, including by the name, they knew them/how they perceive and understand them, as placing additional or artificial barriers on a witness is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence. Accordingly, witnesses giving evidence in trials should not be required to call an accused “she”, particularly if they knew the accused as a male.

21. There may be some situations where the judge may decide not to use the trans person’s preferred name/pronouns to ensure a witness can give best evidence, eg a female rape victim may find it incomprehensible if the judge and others in court refer to her attacker as “she”.

53.“Gender critical” is a phrase which, broadly speaking, refers to a belief that sex is fundamentally immutable and binary. People who are gender critical do not believe that a person can change their sex. Very often it is linked to concerns that allowing the definition of women to include trans women would make the concept of “women” meaningless and undermine protection for vulnerable women and girls. There is also often concern about what is seen as potential encroachment into single sex spaces and opportunities. 54. Gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs, even if they might offend or upset trans people (and others).492

That seems quite a change did people in the law world know it was coming? Or are they sneaking it out to avoid TRAs

New version:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-July-2024.pdf

Old version:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-April-2023-revision-2.pdf

Thank the lord and pass the chocolate biscuits

Well this is quite the turn up, I am surprised tbh, I really didn't think a rewrite would happen. GOOD.

Anyone got popcorn going to need it to watch the breakdowns on twitter

Having said that, as pps say, this is a big improvement and will help set a more impartial tone for future hearings

Somewhere on the internet I can hear whinging! Lots of whinging!

😏

That is a really wonderful set of changes. And I disagree @snowypeaks, I think what people call themselves is a material fact in their lives which is part of the truth and may either be relevant to the case, or just something that can be accepted if not relevant to events.

That's great news. I'll take this as a win for women and girls.

What I should have said in my earlier post at 13:53 is this:

I like the section on gender critical people and sections 20 and 21 are an improvement.
I still think there is a fundamental problem in section 19
19 It should be possible to work on the basis of a person’s chosen gender identity and their preferred name/pronouns, “he/she or they”, for most court and tribunal purposes, regardless of whether they have obtained legal recognition of their sex/gender by way of a GRC. Whilst in many cases it should be possible to use the trans person’s preferred name/pronouns, there will be situations where it is clearly inappropriate.

Courts should be concerned with the truth. The Equal Treatment Bench Book seems to be accepting self-ID - which is not the law. I could understand it if it said preferred pronouns could be used in the case of a defendant/witness with a GRC, because a GRC-holder has the right to be treated as the opposite sex. No-one else. There is no reason to state lies as truth in a court of law.
The process of obtaining a GRC has to include a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The drafters of the ETBB might argue that they are trying to avoid causing unnecessary distress. But they should not assume that everyone who claims a special identity has gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is very, very rare.

I also think it should be fully acknowledged what sex people are, and it should be what is reported in the press.

That doesn't matter. It's not the truth and nobody else should have to pander to it or accept it. It isn't a therapy group or a chess club. It's a court.
The fact that they claim to be opposite sex or neither sex may be material to the case. What they actually are is what should be referred to in court. We should never have played along with this toxic nonsense.

This has only come about because of the women who publicly put their careers on the line to call this shit out, and to others who've worked quietly and anonymously behind the scenes. Big thanks to all who did not shut up and be kind.

It's a start - returning truth and honesty to the captured judiciary.

Wonder whether the recent "resignation" of a transactivist judge who was allowed to influence the Bench Book from 2020 has allowed facts to once again be prioritised in court?

Trans people could be the victim of crime/witness to crime, in which case they need to be able to give witness in the best way possible too.

Excellent news. The only disappointment is that they say calling the perpetrator “she” could affect quality of evidence, but there’s no acknowledgement of how distressing it is for the victim to have to call their attacker “she”. It’s about improving the legal process which is good, but there’s nothing about not making the whole ordeal even worse for the victim.

I suspect it had more chance of going through from a dry legal "best practice" standpoint than an emotional one.

Also, if you consider that a victim might have feelings of distress about referring to her male attacker as 'she', then you may also be compelled to consider the distress of the defendant at being referred to as 'he'.

So it's better to stick with the quality of the evidence given.

There is, it clearly says the victim does not need to do this. It also says witnesses do not need to if the judge decides it may affect the quality of their testimony

good news to have common sense and the valuation of facts back in the court room

I’m rather shocked at this. I wonder who rewrote it and who approved it.

Courts should deal with facts. Not fantasy, not fiction, not imagination, not preferences. Just facts.

Yes I’m sure that’s exactly it.

Right, well the next step is to ensure that if the accused is transgender, that fact is referred to in proceedings.

Then that IPSO's diktak guidelines make it clear that media outlets should make that fact clear.

So that future Nathan/Naomi O'Briens are not described as "women" in the media and the public is not lied to