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

Excellent
I’ll have a biccie please @Dumbo12

Plus in court they make you swear to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', if the judge then turns around and then directs the witness to lie, they render the whole oath and legal process redundant. 🤯

I am so relieved about this- thanks @MissMaryBennett

It has taken YEARS to get to this point
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/12/28/the-judges-bench-book/

Despite the improvements, names are one thing but self Iding of sex (domestic abuse, sexual assault etc) is always inappropriate. Truth and material reality are fundamental in court.

BlackeyedSusan

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.

In practice, the victim who is claiming an identity will be giving evidence about somebody else and it's that person's sex which will be at issue. The court could take the same approach as HCPs do - ie, refrain from rubbing the victim/witness's nose in the fact of their sex, but on the occasions that they have to refer to their sex or talk about them in the third person, they should not use preferred pronouns unless in the case of a GRC holder. Facts. It's a court.

Secondly, calling a man who claims to be a woman (MCW) she/her, even if they are the victim, could influence the jury or the court as to the evidence they are giving - how to weigh it.
"The victim says she entered the lesbian bar at 9pm."
"She is 5 foot 7."
Even apparently innocuous statements like that have a different bearing on the facts of the case if the witness/victim is male.

"The victim says he entered the lesbian bar at 9pm."
That's a male person going into a lesbian bar.

"He is 5 foot 7."
That's taller than average for a woman, but smaller than average for a man.

Plus, the mental load on everyone else of using wrong sex pronouns affects how they process and absorb information.

The most important thing is a fair trial. Truth.

I came across this comment on a YouTube (it was a q&a between Jordan Peters on and John McWhorter re. pronouns)

Perhaps Maria McLachlan could apply for some retrospective compensation now that it's been accepted that a female victim being violently attacked by a man can be spoken about thruthfully?

This was my first thought.

Glad to see the return of common sense instead of forcing magical thinking on the courts.

Well now, this is quite the change. When I complained to the BBC about the coverage of ‘Isla Bryson’ I got this back;

”We raised your concerns with senior news editors. They explained that our coverage stemmed from a High Court report and it’s important that we are accurate in our descriptions of what has happened. In this case, a transgender woman has been found guilty of raping two women in attacks carried out before she changed gender.

Our reporting was clear to explain that Isla Bryson carried out the attacks as a man, when known as Adam Graham, and that she now identifies as a woman and is in the process of gender reassignment.

We are satisfied that our coverage has included accurate descriptions.”

Hopefully we’ll see an end to this tone-deaf, rage-inducing stuff from the media. Certainly the BBC will have less to hide behind.

It was the Maria Machlachlan case that first had the old handmaidenish me going ‘hang on!?’ I hope she knows what a key part she’s played in a gradual return to something approaching sanity, despite the shit she went through.

The pendulum being painfully dragged back to midline sense again.

Although I note the sympathy and concern for the (male) abuser's wishes and feelings and inner self and the rather grudging admittance that the woman has rights, however offensive some people may find this. Her feelings naturally don't matter, just the quality of her evidence. And how offended she is by the other perspective is also of no interest.

But it's a start I suppose, from a point of utter insane prejudice, harm to women and irresponsibility.

Bloody hell, the grown ups are back in the room. I expect some people will be absolutely fuming.

Anyone know if Isla is still a "woman" now there in male prison?

It’s more than I had hoped for

Flipping heck that was unexpected. It's a huge improvement and must have been a result of all the court cases.

Well said, Beowulfa, well done for remembering what so many women have gone through to get these welcome changes. It's an encouraging start but - hasta la victoria siempre, eh?

I think poor Isla is unhappy

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/12526511/isla-bryson-adam-graham-hmp-edinburgh-corton-vale-trans/

Having read the report, my mind is going in all kinds of awful directions about the metal detector issue. I do hope it doesn't smart too long, Isla.

What a relief. It's like someone coming back to their senses after having been lost in delirium.

The pendulum is swinging back.

But, again, it's muddled. It's all up to the discretion of the judge. And as a PP says, they're giving the judge permission to lie, and make other people lie.

What they have done is made it possible for rational people to avoid the ideology. But, of course, we all know not all judges are rational.

How does this affect reporting? Do they still have to go on what the judge actually says? Or does this give the press discretion?

Because to me, that is just as important if not more so. Far more people will be reading the report, than are in court.

I've been saying something like that for years now

Agreed. I can't see how inconsistency across judges and courts is useful. However, this may be my absence of experience in such settings (for which I'm grateful but I realise that this influences my perspective).

wonder what RMW has to say about this....

🤐 🫥 🤫

Quiet as a church mouse!

Yes and there's also the issue of apparent bias. A rape victim who sees the judge prioritising the alleged perpetrators feelings over her experience and percaptions as the victim would be strange indeed if she didn't feel the entire process to be hugely biased in one direction.

I should have added, not only is there bias in favour of the alleged perpetrator standing trial, wrong-sex pronouns is also biased against normal English language and reality. It's an ideological position to use preferred pronouns for an alleged perpetrator which do not match reality or standard English. It's a hugely political act and I find it unbelievable Judges have been allowed to be so overtly in favour of the defendents time and again.

It is corruption of the judicial system.

This is a small move back towards reality, but it is not enough when Judges can still lie. They are in a position of extreme power and many witnesses will feel cowed into lying themselves if they see the example set by the Judge. It's a brave person who tells the truth and doesn't follow the Judge's example.

Judges are intelligent, they COULD just avoid pronouns altogether (which might also give them some 'lived experience' of the mental load they've been imposing on victims and witnesses), that would be neutral, using wrong-sex pronouns is not, it's highly political in favour of a male supremacist movement.

Agreed. As a pp said upthread, it's still basically at the judge's discretion.

That's a great post Dumbledore. Chilling to think that these lies are perpetuated thoughout so many of our institutions - the NHS, schools and universities, the civil service, business and the media.
The power of this regressive ideology is immense.