is there a thread for FWS / Prisons?

[weegielass]

Its live today on the scottish tribunals website and lasting for three days. Easy to join and good audio quality. I think that's marion on screen in the background. She seemed rather amused at the judge trying to understand the definitions.

What you call "a protected custody wing", actually called a Vulnerable Prisoner Unit, isn't just for paedophiles, it's for any prisoner who may be vulnerable.

That includes informants, ex-police officers, those who are in debt to other prisoners, those who have fallen foul of gangs, etc.

In a men's prison, any trans identified male prisoner can be housed in such a unit if vulnerable.

Did this advocate reprint the SM in FWS? I recognise her voice. I find her style of presentation a tad irritating but that could well be influenced by the utter guff of her arguments

represent! Not reprint 🙄

Paris Green requested surgery - what that entails we haven't been told. However, the doctor concerned has now refused to to do the surgery since he doesn't want a murderer on the same ward as his other patients.

ETA There have been no reports (that I'm aware of) of any other men in the women's estate requesting surgery. They'd just really like to stay locked up with the women.

The bloke I referred to upthread, I did a thread about the precious lamb if anyone wants to learn more

Poor misgendered murderer | Mumsnet https://share.google/ieopHP4RpWpb7gox1

SM are arguing that prisons are a function and not a public service. Why then is it called the Scottish Prison Service?

Another thread rendered unreadable with pages of arguing with a man's stuck belief system that has no bearing at all on law or reality, and making everything all about him. It's irrelevant.

You have to love someone (the judge) who refers to fora and not forums.

What did Marion just say? "yet"?

The public listening to this do not look at all impressed.

It occurs to me that FWS are pounding the facts; SM are pounding the law.

this guy speaks too slow

It's because of his accent.

He's stalling because he knows he's speaking nonsense.

Was it just me or did the judge seem more amenable with his questions towards the Scotgov legal team?

The judge is a woman.

In the closing few minutes, the respondent's barrister was talking about Scotland having to follow European law. The quote was something like

'because of the unique position of the Scottish ministers, they do not have the easy get out of following laws set in Westmister but also have to refer to European law'

Does anyone have a better memory of what was said?

'because of the unique position of the Scottish ministers, they do not have the easy get out of following laws set in Westminster but also have to refer to European law'

If that's true, why would that be, why isn't UK law the only one they have to follow?

Ah, this really was them arguing the EA didnt apply to prisons, wasnt it? Nutters.

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for the people whose job compels them to mouth absurdities.

Yes. It's a very technical argument. It hinges on the interpretation of Section 57 of the Scotland Act and whether someone can sue the Scottish Ministers under the HRA if they do something wrong in ways that are connected with primary legislation. Other public authorities are protected by 6(2) HRA, but not the Scottish Ministers.

This quote from Somerville vs Scottish Ministers in the Supreme Court makes the point:

A further indication of what was intended by Parliament is to be found in section 57(3) SA. It extends to acts of the Lord Advocate in prosecuting any offence, and in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, the protection that is afforded to a UK public authority which acts in ways that are inextricably connected to primary legislation that are described in section 6(2) HRA. But it does not extend this protection to any other member of the Scottish Executive.

Not quite; they're saying that the sections of the EA that apply only to public services may not apply. Other sections do apply.

You will also see that the Public Sector Equality Duty applies in the discharge of public functions; section 149 of the EA says

A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

I think they want to say that managing prisons is a public function and so the law requires them to advance equality of opportunity etc etc.

They've set up their exposition of the structure of the law today; tomorrow they will apply the law (as they've explained it) to the facts. It should be interesting.

Does that mean we could sue Scottish ministers as individuals for breaching the human rights of women?

How does making the women’s estate mixed sex fulfil that duty to women?

No, unfortunately. If you sue your local authority for violating your human rights they can say "we we did what we did because the law says we had to" and that's a defence. That defence isn't available to the Scottish Ministers.

I guess we'll be told tomorrow.