Summary of Day Two: Data Collection

Defence confirmed that no data are collected on GRC holders. MoJ does not know how many TW with GRC are in prison. The reason for this is that collecting these data may be criminalised under the GRA.
Judges were incredulous that ‘no one knows’ how many TW with a GRC there are stating that anecdotal reports are inadequate. Defence was directed to supply specific data on GRC holders (in written form by 12th March).
We frequently hear that it is a criminal act to state that someone has a GRC. The Equal Treatment Bench Book goes as far as to say that misgendering and dead naming could also be criminal acts.
It cannot be the case that the law, or the interpretation of that law, criminalises gathering data that is vital to safeguarding and to risk ax. No entitlement to privacy can trump the safety of others in this way.
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Keep Prisons Single Sex

Keep Prisons Single Sex Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NoXYinXXprisons

4 Mar
Summary of Day Two: The Case of Karen Jones

Defence referred to legal case brought by a TW with a GRC who had not (yet) had surgery, and who sought to be transferred from the male to the female estate. We have identified this as the case brought by Karen Jones:
The judge in that case ruled in favour of Jones, stating that to deny the request was both in violation of Article 8 rights and ‘irrational’. We assume that defence case is similarly that to exclude TW (at least those with GRC) from female estate is ‘irrational’.
Read 7 tweets
4 Mar
Summary of Day Two: EA (2010)
It was clear from evidence presented that the MoJ is seemingly determined to house at least some male prisoners in the female estate & to expose women in prison to them. Even the highest risk TW are still able to mix with women.
Distress to women is never a consideration: defence states this cannot be operationalised in risk ax.
The decision that EA exceptions did not apply to prisons was based on definition of ‘services’ & ‘communal accommodation’. SSJ now concedes that in some respects prison is a ‘service’ for purposes of EA exceptions.
Read 7 tweets
3 Mar
Judges: want agreed note on 2 topics meaning & ambit of Section 7 and question of whether allocation is a service.
Re stats: need answers for 6 questions
1. how many trans prisoners in estate as whole
2. how many of these have GRC
3. how many trans prisoners are on E wing or in any comparable section/unit
4. how many in general population
5. of number 4 how many have GRC
6. how many TW with GRC are in male estate
7. how many biological women are in male estate

Any rule, instruction or guidance as to circs as to which a biological woman could or would be allocated or transferred to the male estate? It is not credible that there is no guidance of this.

By 12th March please!
Read 6 tweets
3 Mar
KM Response:
Re triggering: no difficulty because requires a decision maker to have regard to vulnerability to women including that they are likely to have history of SA & DV.
Allocation of TW with GRC pending case board review & interim management of risk: but there is no process for this, including the mandatory risk factors that will be considered & not by anyone with specialist expertise
Recording of GRC status: but we do not even have the numbers of prisoners who transition & receive GRC in prison - inconceivable that prison does not know this info.
Read 9 tweets
3 Mar
SH: More on EA. None of the policies mean that TW will necessarily be in women's estate. Only allow for the possibility.
LJH: Yes, exceptionality
SH: Note that policies do not apply to women, but have effect on individual women. Takes us to justification.
Swift: the balancing competing interests...
SH: Yes. Gillick point...
(case law on this point) is policy capable of implementation in a manner that is lawful?
SH: if = realistic ways in which application of policy is lawful, then Gillick does not apply. If application in any particular case is unlawful, then challenge on that basis remains.
Read 6 tweets
3 Mar
SH: aims and objectives of the policies gone through again. Also concerned with wider issues of welfare and rehabilitation.
'Less intrusive means': dealt with
'triggering': dealt with
'fair balance': Lang Witness Statement: looks at creation of E Wing & explains why policy is struck where it is in respect of E Wing & why the balance has been struck in respect of care policy
Re Brewster (case), matters were not taken into account by SSJ: can see where policy options were laid out and why decision was made.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!