JFC! "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!"
Let's see if the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers this?
Chapter 12: Trans people
Treatment of trans people in court
(My bolding and emphasis below)
-
Typically, it should be unproblematic for the judge to use the trans person’s preferred name and pronouns (“he/she” or “they”), regardless of whether they have obtained a GRC.468 However, where one side’s case hinges on the recognition of the biological sex of the trans person as crucial, and the other side on the recognition of their chosen identification, judges need to be careful not to let the choice of gendered pronouns give an appearance of bias, or that there is a predetermined conclusion. If possible, using the individual’s name instead of a pronoun where these pronouns are contested, or alternatively, the gender-neutral pronoun of “they” may help minimise offence towards, or the undermining of, an individual’s personal identification, while also not validating and giving it undue weight over the perceptions of others
-
There will be other 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 biologically male attacker as “she”. In the end, it is for the judge to ensure that a proper balance is struck between respecting how a trans person, as with any person, wishes to be addressed (within reason), and enabling a witness to give best evidence/recount events as accurately and truthfully as possible.
-
Witnesses should never be compelled to use the trans person’s preferred pronouns. It should always be permitted for them to refer to a person how they presently understand or previously knew them (as in any case, eg a fraud where a defendant has used multiple identities). A victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or assault by a trans person is particularly likely to describe the perpetrator in accordance with the victim’s experience and perception of events. To do otherwise, and place additional or artificial barriers on a witness, is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence.
20. A person’s biological sex or their trans history should not normally need to be disclosed if it is not relevant to the legal proceedings. Where appropriate, in the interests of the administration of justice, the court may consider making reporting restrictions under s.4 Contempt of Court Act 1981, or a range of privacy orders under rule 49, The Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) 2024 or other relevant Tribunal Rules, to prevent the disclosure of a trans person’s previous name and trans history. Alternatively, it may direct that part or all the hearing be in private, subject to the need to balance competing convention rights. It is usually inappropriate to enquire about someone’s medical history, including their anatomical status, unless it is relevant to the case. If it becomes relevant, the issue should be handled with sensitivity. Again, a private hearing might be directed, subject to considering competing convention rights.
- Fundamental principles of equality and acceptance of diversity demand that no prejudice or difference in treatment is accorded to a person due to their appearance, including their manner of dress. Any person’s “gender expression” and/or choice of clothing should be respected unless there is an affront to public decency or a clear intention to insult the judicial process. This applies equally to all people, whether trans or not.
Disclosure of protected information under s.22 Gender Recognition Act 2004
-
Where a person has applied for or obtained a GRC, s.22 GRA 2004 makes it an offence for someone who has obtained “protected information” in an official capacity to disclose that information to any other person. There are a number of exceptions to s.22, one of which, s.22(4)(e), is that it is not an offence to disclose protected information if the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of proceedings before a court or tribunal.
Recommended terminology
-
“Deadnaming” is a term used where a trans person, in the course of transitioning or having transitioned, is called by their birth name, or where their birth name is otherwise referred to, instead of their chosen name. In court, witnesses may refer to a person by their deadname if this is how they knew them.
Page 130:
The Equality Act 2010
The EqA 2010 prohibits discrimination in relation to “sex”. This means being a man or being a woman. The Supreme Court 339 has determined that the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the EqA 2010 refer to a person’s biological sex. Woman has always meant biological woman. Man has always meant biological man. Sex has always meant biological sex. See the Equality Act 2010 appendix for an overview of the EqA 2010 and more detail of the application of the EqA 2010 to “sex”.
- During questioning:
Pronouns should not be used. When referring to a person, the name of the person should be used on every occasion.
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/diversity/equal-treatment-bench-book/
If the fake passport is in the name of "Katie Wallis" then it would only make sense IMHO for the court to refer to the defendant by his legal name, "Jamie Wallis".
However if the fake passport is in the name of Jamie Wallis or a third name then it seems to be up to the defendant to specify by which name should be used.
Using two names to refer to the defendant seems bonkers. IMHO but IANAL.
Jamie Wallis, 41, who is now known as Katie Wallis and uses female pronouns, represented Bridgend from 2019 to 2024.
The offence is alleged to have happened in 2022 while Wallis was still an MP.
Wallis previously appeared before magistrates in Cardiff charged with possession of a false passport "without reasonable excuse" in Cowbridge or elsewhere, on 5 April 2022.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8g3g1xzywo
Anyway, why has this taken so long to come to court and did Wallis inform the Conservative Party and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/