|
|
|
Notifications
|
|
|
|
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality on 27 June 2013
The Court of Appeal has just published it’s judgement in the latest sex-by-deception case. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time a written judgement has been provided in such a case and is binding on the lower courts, i.e. creating case law.
It’s not good news.
As I’m quoting direct from the judgement, the below contains detailed references to sexual acts. This is unavoidable as it is highly relevant. There are no references to underage or non-consensual acts, the case revolves entirely around “deception” as to gender invalidating consent.
I’m going to quote extensively from the judgement as I believe it speaks for itself However, you can skip the quotes and just read my summary and it should make sense. What I will note is the heavy and unnecessary use of quote marks to imply deception earlier on: ‘him’, ‘his’ etc. This is despite the note from the judge towards the end about “confusion with her own sexuality”, specific reference to the person concerned “talking about wanting a sex change” and a pre-setnence report revealing “a history of…confusion surrounding her gender identity”.
The judge’s way of phrasing things could at best be described as insensitive and I suspect they had no training in this area.
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/tag/sex-by-deception/
The whole sex-by-deception thing is back in the courts, this time with a teenager from England. (Telegraph)
The facts are broadly similar in both cases – a woman1 poses as male and has relationships with other women, but this time she ends up in trouble due to sexual assaults on the women, rather than them simply being unhappy when they find out the full situation as that happened later. From what I can tell, these were all short-lived relationships with girls Barker already knew, and not the longer-term ones we saw in the previous Scottish case. It also sounds more as if Barker is lesbian rather than somewhere on the Transgender spectrum which may have been the case with Brooks.
The main issue appears to be the sexual assaults and Barker has pleaded guilty to those. But what is concerning is the one count of “fraud” mentioned in the Daily Mail that’s also got a guilty plea. The Mail makes this sound as if the fraud charge is related to sexual activity. However, Barker also attempted to get compensation for a made-up assault so this may be straight-forward financial fraud rather than anything else.
Either way, a simple guilty plea does not set case law
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/01/sex-by-deception-back-in-the-courts/
Interesting articles Christine and it's worthwhile following the links to read more.
Sex by deception occurs constantly and my teenage years certainly witnessed it. (Not perpertrated by me of course). Many a teenager has been coerced into bed by various means of deception. Did this only make news because it has TG connections?
Curious that the overriding factor from the prosecution was the gender of the person, which is really irrelevant as being a particular gender is not a crime. The deception and the allegations of sexual assault are the real issues.
It does open up the age old question for us though, of when, if and 'why should I' open up about your own physiology? But that's another debate.
Well I can see the arguments. In fcat to misrepresent your self as one gender and actually be another only finiding out during intercourse is indeed a fraudulent act at best. At worst it is indeed a sexual/ indecent assualt on the person not knowing. On the other had the person just cahnged their mind or was racked with guilt in engaging in effectvley in the eyes of some as a "homosexual" act then the TG person is wide open to all sorts of charges. Sorry but it just goes to show how careful our community has to be. We cannot go around picking up fantsists or do this Dogging thing. We lead complex lives, often secretive why the heck would you reveal your true vunerable self on a one night stand with some one you dont know too well?
My thoughts and interpretation of the law.
Does ''stealth trans people'' include those with a gender recognition certificate,, changed birth certificate with new gender marker? Would be rather an interesting case in court. The ramifications would be endless, Legally, a person with a gender Recognition Certificate cannot be culpable of fraud introducing themselves in their aquired gender Even if they are pre-op.
Gender Recognition Act 2004
The Gender Recognition Act enables people aged over eighteen to gain full legal recognition for the gender in which they live. Applications are considered by the Gender Recognition Panel. Once a person receives a Gender Recognition Certificate, they are legally of that gender for every purpose and have all the rights and responsibilities associated with that gender.
20 Gender-specific offences
(1)Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
(2)An offence is a “relevant gender-specific offence” if—
(a)either or both of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied, and
(b)the commission of the offence involves the accused engaging in sexual activity.
(3)The conditions are—
(a)that the offence may be committed only by a person of a particular gender, and
(b)that the offence may be committed only on, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender,
and the references to a particular gender include a gender identified by reference to the gender of the other person involved.
