Today at #FMQ@NicolaSturgeon answered Qs put by @Douglas4Moray concerning the allocation of convicted double rapist, Adam Graham, to the female estate at Cornton Vale. Despite tenacious questioning from DM, who correctly used male pronouns to refer to AG, 1/?
NS refused to state whether AG is currently in a women's prison. Nevertheless, she gave a clear statement that this prisoner will not be held in the female estate. 2/?
She agreed that as a general principle it is correct that a rapist should not be in a women's prison.
In my view, she would never have given such a statement just a few months ago. In my view, we would instead have had accusations from Green Party MSPs of transphobia. 3/?
We would instead have had accusations from the SNP of denying someone's identity. Accusations of bigotry. That didn't happen. The "correct answer" has shifted & has done so in a hugely important way. 4/?
Make no mistake, none of this would have happened without the tenacity shown by MSPs, most notably @RussellFindlay1. None of this would have happened without the work everyone has put into this campaign. I also believe that the @MoJGovUK statement yesterday was influential. 5/?
I remind NS & everyone else: this is not about "being trans". That is wholly irrelevant. It's about being male. All CJS policies must have sex as registered at birth at the forefront. 6/6
One point in all of this that disgusts me more than anything is when "hypotheticals" have more weight than reality. I see this time & time again. In discussions with MoJ. In discussions with Ministers. We saw it in the Lords when the prisons amendments were discussed. 1/?
The purely hypothetical case of a TW, long transitioned, who in the words of the ETTB "has lived her entire adult life as a wife and mother", feminine & willowy as April Ashley was said to be, convicted of a petty & non-violent crime, harmless, terrified & desperate. 2/?
What disgusts me is when the "rights" of this non-existent hypothetical, when the "rights" of what is merely a thought experiment trump the lived needs of real women. 3/?
My concern is ALWAYS for women in prison. But TW are also unnecessarily adversely impacted by these policies. TW in both male & female estate write to me. The policies often require these prisoners, where their legally recorded sex does not match the estate they are housed in 1/?
to be held effectively in isolation. Where a GRC holder is in the male estate, that prisoner must be held according to the female regime & cannot mix with the male prisoners. Opportunities that it should be the right of that prisoner to access, including for rehabilitation, 2/?
are denied to that prisoner. The prisoner is effectively held in isolation. Something that should only happen for the shortest period of time and in exceptional circumstances. Again: my energies are always focussed on women. But, what is arguably a breach of this prisoner's 3/?
A thread in response to @LordCFalconer in 2 parts on why @scottishprisons is not entitled to conclude that GRCs make no difference to the management or allocation of prisoners & why evidence from MoJ indicates that GRCs almost certainly will:
Whilst @LordCFalconer is correct - it is up to SPS to decide how to deal with GRCs when making decisions concerned the allocation & management of prisoners - evidence strongly indicates that GRCs will carry significant weight. 1/?
What is this evidence? We can't look to anything north of the border because @scottishprisons by their own admission have never had to deal with a prisoner with a GRC, or one who obtained a GRC whilst in prison. That their policy is currently 'GRC blind' frankly means nothing 2/?
because it has never had to be applied to a prisoner with a GRC. This is regardless of any issues raised by GRR. SPS statement that they will continue to be able to apply a policy that is 'GRC blind' in a way that pays no account to GRC status is untested & their confidence 3/?
the male estate. There are other differences which make it attractive as a male offender to have a GRC. 1. Allocation: For GRC holders the assumption is allocation to the female estate. For non-GRC holders, initial allocation is to the male estate. 10/?
2. Evidence & risk: Non-GRC holders have to build a good enough case to transfer to the female estate. When considering this, a non-GRC holder is assessed as a male - risk assessment tools for male offenders are used & the comparator is that which applies to a man 11/?
Whilst non-GRC holders have to make a good enough case (& when considered as a male) to be transferred to the female estate, for GRC holders, the prison service has to build a strong enough case to refuse allocation to the female estate. 12/?
The Statement is consistent with the legal opinion obtained by the MoJ, which we became aware of in 2021. It is useful to know that this position is held across departments (depts may obtain their own legal opinion even on the same issue). 2/?
This opinion will have been obtained from an appointed barrister. In conjunction with the assessment of legal risk, this explains decisions as regards policy & practice (certainly within the MoJ). 3/?