I think the judge decided that on balance he believed that it was reasonable to understand that she was referring to IB when she made a comment about prisons to DrU.
145. The claimant said that the second respondent could not change in the changing room and that it would help if the second respondent did not do so. She said that women have a right to feel safe and that it was just like that person in the prisons. That was a reference to the case of Isla Bryson/Adam Graham.
630. The second aspect was her evidence that when referring to “the prisons incident” during the Christmas Eve incident she was not aware that that involved a rapist, as a broad summary of her evidence. That we considered to be not credible. There was an admitted fact that “C referred to the “women’s prison incident”, that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.” It is taken from the claimant’s pleadings, at paragraph 13 of the Response Table which the admitted fact cross references. In light of the circumstances of that case, which involved a person who as a man raped two women, who then commenced to transition to female including the change of name, and where an issue arose when initially placed in a women’s prison, which is a matter of particular concern, and of interest, to those with gender critical beliefs such as the claimant, that evidence seeking to distance herself from the remark which related to a rapist was we considered not credible.