Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 9 June 2021.

The Ministry of Justice is leaving the Stonewall diversity scheme. And it already shows. Women's rights - and dignity, decency, privacy - are finally being taken seriously. There is much work to do, but the process has begun.

All the way back in April we at ConservativesforWomen wrote to the Ministry of Justice expressing concern about the new Victim's Code that had just gone live. We weren't particularly surprised when our concerns were met with silence... So we tried the Victims Commissioner. A few months went by - and then suddenly - a result! 

The updated 'Victim's Code' was trumpeted as giving victims of crime greater confidence in the police and the courts. We were therefore astonished to see that the code was unclear as to whether female victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse would have the right to be interviewed by female police staff. You can see why the wording gave us concern:

'2.8. If you are a victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence or domestic abuse, you have the Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a gender of your choice. The police must meet your request unless doing so would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. If this happens, the police will tell you why.

In our letter to the Victims Commissioner we pointed out that a woman should have the 'Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a SEX of your choice'. We asked:

• Could you please clarify whether this was the intention of the Code and whether a correction will be made?
• Or by using the term gender, is your intention that a female victim of sexual violence should have to accept interview by a biological male if he identities as a woman, without further recourse?
• If this is so, how have the implications of the Equality Act, and sex being a protected characteristic, been taken into account in the formulation of this policy?'

Now, here, is the response, in full, that we are delighted to have finally received:

----------------------

“The reference in paragraph 2.8 of the new Victims’ Code, which came into force on 1 April, relating to victims being able to choose the gender of their police interviewer should be read as allowing for victims to choose the sex or gender of their interviewer. The right therefore includes both protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment.

The Equality Act 2010 permits the provision of services which are single or separate sex.  Therefore victims may request an interviewer of a particular sex or gender and, as per paragraph 2.8, the police must meet the victims request unless doing so would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.”

----------------------

It is nice to see The Equality Act's single sex exemptions being so clearly referenced. Thank goodness Stonewall is gone. Of course, a letter to us is one thing; this 'clarification' needs to make its way to police forces across the land. There is no excuse for the unintended ambiguity to remain in the Code. We have written back to the Victims Commissioner as follows:

----------------------

"It is fantastic that the Ministry of Justice has clarified its intent around 2.8 of the Victims Code. However, this is not necessarily a natural or intuitive reading of the code: the Ministry of Justice's intent would be greatly enhanced if the code could be updated to actually reflect its intent. Therefore: 

1) Will section 2.8 of the Victims Code be updated to clarify the Ministry of Justice intent, and to make it clear that if you are a 'victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence or domestic abuse' ...you have 'the Right to request that the police officer conducting the interview is of a [insert] (sex or) gender of your choice'?” 

----------------------

We will keep readers posted. Meanwhile, we will also now ask the Victims Commissioner to pursue our concerns around the Judicial College's updated Equal Treatment Bench Book. Particularly, its suggestion that female victims of violence should be required, in court, to use female pronouns for violent male perpetrators, should the latter demand it, violating freedom of speech and conscience. 

Untold numbers of policies and practices need to be revised, to protect women’s rights, the integrity of science, and freedom of speech and conscience - let the work begin!