The Bench Book has been updated following the SC judgement

[WallaceinAnderland]

Not sure if it has already been posted but very pleased to see this. From page 193.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ETBB-July-2024-May-2025-update.pdf

Thank you for this. I particularly enjoyed para 19 on p 195:

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).

and the jump from trans straight to fraud...

For some reason I couldn't open the pdf (probably bad Internet) but it's about time this stuff is put next to coercive control as well as fraud.

Thanks OP.

Presumably the wishes of the self interested judges / barristers were removed after their public beclowning following the SC judgment? Seems as if adults have re entered the room?

Para 17 makes a good point

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. 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.

And 18

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”.

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).

This is incredible.

So another brick crumbling in the foundation.

Oh

Hark!

What is this I hear.....

The Halle-fucking-lujah chorus!

This is truly wonderful news! Such a high level to have such majòr changes implemented

I downloaded and read bits of the Bench Book. Fascinating - esp as I am working my way through the Shardlake novels, on and off; very different approaches to justice! Delighted to see sense applied, with statistics, to current social problems.

Master Vic McCloud will be sad and no doubt, having to wipe the lines of diluted eyeliner off his cheeks. Tan Ikram will be glowering, stamping round in a fury and his cat will be in hiding.

The section on support animals has also been updated, rumoured to be in response to a certain TRA.

About fucking time

Paragraph 34 is 1 of my favourite parts

Can you enlighten us?

I like para 29 about the policy on where trans offenders should be housed in the prison estate.

The current policy is likely to be urgently reviewed following the decision of the Supreme Court that “... ‘woman’ always and only means a biological female of any age in section 212(1). It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition; and ‘woman’ does not mean or sometimes mean or include a male of any age who holds a GRC”. In the context of single-sex services, the Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no entitlement for anyone to use single-sex services intended for members of the opposite sex.

Para 44 in the section on terminoolgy is good to see too.

“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

Yes. Basic logic and reason restored.

Exactly my thoughts. And how ridiculous that this could only have happened thanks to the SC judgement and FWS to have brought the case.

Oh no! I was relying on my support tarantula if I was ever arrested for my many grave offences, eg for calling men men, adoring JK Rowling or posting rude limericks.

Page 84 (screenshot image to follow)

(ESA = emotional support animal)

Are you asking about the ‘certain TRA’?

There was a case held virtually during COVID times, involving some messiness where a witness had his mum and his support dog present, if I remember correctly. It was somewhat farcical.

That sound you hear is the sound of Jane Russell's and Dr Upton's teeth grinding mixed with the clinking of glasses between Naomi, Sandi and the mysterious donor.

I remember a somewhat crowded front room, with one of them legging it when they were told to put their camera on and pan around the room.

IIRC, that still left the witness, their mam, a bloke taking notes, and the emotional support mutt.

'Can not rewrite history'

Excellent.

I need to quote this stuff next time I get scolded on her for not referring to my brother as she.

If these points are good enough for the bar, then I sure as hell think they are also fair enough when talking about my own life.

The court case was Allison Bailey v. Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers, and Others.

A support dog was brought to a hearing for Stonewall's head of trans inclusion, Kirrin Medcalf, who refused to testify unless his mother, a support worker, and his dog were present, causing a delay and a dispute over late notification of the request.

The dispute: The opposing side accused Stonewall of "blindsiding" the court with this new information, as there had been no pre-approved accommodation for a support dog.

Judge Sarah Goodman, though "disappointed" with the lack of prior notice, allowed a short break for the room to be rearranged. The hearing resumed with the witness accompanied by his mother, solicitor, and dog, although the other side continued to criticize the process.