The addressing of people involved in a criminal court case.

There's no hard-and-fast rule about this. Judges are generally in charge of what goes on in their own courtrooms. The judges of a particular court can make a collective decision about this (and from the article you link it seems that the judges of the Supreme Court of BC and the Provincial Court of BC have done this) but I think it's mostly down to the individual judge, and they won't lay down any rule at all about the matter unless and until it becomes an issue, and my guess is that when that happens they will lay down whatever rule seems most likely to stop people pissing about and enable the trial of the matter to proceed without bickering. "Refer to people by their preferred pronouns" looks like a pretty obvious rule to me, but I'm not a judge.

Whatever the rule is, there won't be one rule for defendants and another for everyone else. The defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence and has no greater or lesser right to a gender identity than the plaintiff, the witnesses, the counsel or the judge.

Witnesses appearing for the prosecution are not entitled to refer to the defendant(s) however they wish.

That’s an inaccurate representation of the position of the Judge in the case you’re referring to too -

Wolf was ordered to pay a £150 fine, a £30 surcharge and £250 towards costs.

However, Judge Grant refused to grant Ms Maclachlan any compensation, saying: "Compensation would not be appropriate, particularly due to the unhelpful way in which the victim was present [at the protest] and the way she was filming.

"She was asked at different stages not to film but continued to do so.

"Another factor I have to take in to account is the Twitter post that has been submitted that was posted after the case had been brought to the attention of the police and there were criminal proceedings pending.

"It was foolish of her to post that tweet in the way that she did.

"It was notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as 'she', she did so with bad grace - having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as 'he' and 'him'".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-ps150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html?amp

The complainants wouldn't be addressing the defendants. They would be giving their evidence, not talking to the defendants.

I think it would simply be easier to continually refer to them as the perpetrator or defendant.

In the light of a controversial case in Britain this week, I think it's justified to resume this discussion.

Nothings changed in terms of anyone’s right to be recognised as their preferred gender, but in terms of the provisions for anyone’s incarceration in England and Wales, I can see issues of human rights breaches which may arise out of the application of the new policy -

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

They will of course be fully aware of this case -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47334760.amp

It is I suppose, I mean I do see where you’re coming from - from the witnesses perspective really. The key thing to remember though in a criminal trial is that the witness is never on trial, and the person who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence maintains the presumption of innocence, which means they also maintain the right to be referred to as their preferred gender as part of recognition of an obligation to be treated with dignity and respect on the basis that regardless of their gender or sex, they are a human being,

Would there ever be a situation One Eyed Jack where you would find it in your heart to have compassion for a biological woman instead of persistently doggedly giving the advantage to the biological male?

I do understand that perspective. However, I suspect a woman who has had an organic object (ie a penis) unwillingly inserted in her would find it difficult to refer to the inserted as she/her!

How about we just place biologically male offenders in the men’s prison and biologically female offenders in the women’s prison?

Knowing that rates of sexual violence are higher in the female estate than in the male estate, that’s not a good idea if you’re suggesting that compassion for their victims should dictate where sexual offenders are accommodated. I’d suggest that individual assessments which is the way it’s done now is a far better approach.

That’s a third and entirely different argument you’re presenting now. First it was you asking me do I have any compassion for women. I pointed out that I have compassion for the victims of sexual violence regardless of their sex or gender.

Then you suggest it would be best to place female sex offenders in the female estate, and male sex offenders in the male estate, and I pointed out that knowing the rates of sex offences committed among women in the female estate are higher than in the men’s estate, that’s not a good idea if the determining factor is the sex or gender of the sex offenders victims - far more women would occupy the male estate, and probably 90% of the female estate would be men, given that the majority of their victims are young boys, males. That’s not to discount the possibility they are a danger to women, it’s just far less likely, and more likely that they would want to form relationships with women in prison in order to gain access to their children.

As to why vulnerable women accommodate the feelings of men, I’m still perplexed by that one myself having worked with many vulnerable women who weren’t too sure themselves why they formed relationships with men who treated them like they weren’t even human. One case that immediately comes to mind by way of example is this one -

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30957282.html

I don’t imagine women are a hive mind so there’s little hope you’ll have any greater insight than these women themselves could offer. When political analyst reminded me of the case of Lindsay Armstrong, I looked it up to refresh myself on the details, and it turns out his sister is quite a piece of work -

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/she-deserved-to-die-1559731

I couldn’t be sure if it’s because he’s her brother, or because he’s a man, or because she may bear animosity towards the victim for accusing her brother of rape is the motivation behind her actions. Then there was this case, and again, quite frankly, I can’t offer you any explanation for his daughter’s actions -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/daughter-asks-for-leniency-for-father-who-abused-her-29698987.html

I don’t think where anyone is accommodated, regardless of their sex or gender, need be ordinary people’s concern. It’s entirely the responsibility of the prison service to determine where prisoners are or should be accommodated, not just based upon their gender or sex, or the nature of their offence, but considering a whole range of factors, including religious affiliation, intellectual capacity, disability and so on. The idea of anyone being transgender applies only to a vanishingly small minority of sex offenders, and I can assure you that where they are accommodated is of no concern to me whatsoever. I do recognise however that prisoners are entitled to be treated in accordance with human rights laws, much as that may offend some people’s ideological sensitivities who imagine they should be able to treat other human beings however they wish. There are laws which prohibit that sort of behaviour.

In short, you find it nigh on impossible to bring yourself to face what everyone else, even the odious N Sturgeon, is accepting (thank goodness) right now.

That a person with a penis posing as an woman, especially a person who has raped a woman/women with that penis, doesn’t belong in a woman’s prison or anywhere else where vulnerable women and children are.

Undaunted you intend to stick to your theory that if a man says he’s a woman then women just have to sit down and be quiet.

And you’ll continue to spend hours on end typing long wordy paragraphs which say nothing really in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

The OPs question was about the witness referring to the accused, not the prosecutor.

I understand that, and Marcusm’s point was about balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the complaining witness. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the prosecution would be hoping their own witnesses wouldn’t tank their case against the accused by deliberately misgendering the accused at every opportunity.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment TT, I thought we weren’t doing this? Legal Discussion is not the appropriate forum for it in any case, where a certain standard of conduct is expected, and humour such as your caricature above of a person more likely to be found guilty of crimes against fashion bears no relevance to a person who is accused of committing a crime against society. There are far more serious implications for the latter than the former.

When it comes to people accused of sex crimes in particular, I care less about their gender or sex than I do about ensuring they receive a fair trial, as opposed to the idea of witnesses believing they have free reign of the Courts. That kind of behaviour risks not only the prosecution failing to make their case, it’s a distraction which is likely to lead to the Judge getting browned off if they have to keep reminding witnesses to conduct themselves appropriately, and it certainly doesn’t curry favour with a jury who are likely to end up becoming disinterested and failing to examine critical evidence which would ensure a successful prosecution.

We’re both aware of the dismal conviction rates for sexual offences, though I’m not sure if you’re aware of jury bias in terms of how a jury which is made up of a majority of women tends to deliver a favourable verdict for the defence in sex cases where the accused is a man and the complaining witness is a woman. It’s a phenomenon that’s observed across multiple jurisdictions, and while legal academics and researchers and psychologists have multiple theories to explain the nature of the phenomenon, the kind of biological determinism that you’re engaging in, isn’t one of them.

You have to wilfully ignore mountains of evidence in order to come to the conclusions you do about sex offenders and their victims, not the least of which is your caricature of what constitutes a vulnerable woman. One only has to look at a recent case where a woman fought the law, and while the law did win eventually, the officers involved didn’t come away unscathed from the encounter with a male officer being package checked and a female officer being kicked into the chest. It doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t in a vulnerable situation with five officers against one ordinary indecent criminal.

Similarly, in the context of women who are subject to sexual abuse, assault and harassment in the female estate of prisons where prison officers are primarily of the male sex, you appear to wish to ignore the wood for the trees and zero in on transgender sex offenders among the prison population. That you would then question my compassion for women seems a bit, well, dare I say - oblivious to reality.

In spite of that, and by way of returning the compliment, I too wish you well in your advocacy endeavours, in the knowledge that one of the first signs of cult behaviour isn’t that one loses their sense of reality, it’s that they lose their sense of humour, and thankfully at least for society at large, you’re nowhere near that point.

A trial isn’t about the victim, it’s about the accused, who has the right to the presumption of innocence. What you’re doing is presuming the accused is guilty. You’re also assuming that by default the victim will have an issue with referring to the accused in accordance with their preferred gender. A trial isn’t about establishing or affirming anything about the accused’ gender or sex. It’s entirely about establishing whether the accused is guilty or not guilty (or in Scotland - a verdict of not proven exists, for now) of the crimes they have been charged with.

A victim is giving evidence as a witness in the prosecution’s case against the accused. If having to refer to the accused in such a manner as directed by the Court which they find objectionable is something they are unwilling to do, the witness can find themselves in contempt of court. There’s no need to go back to the drawing board, there are already established procedures to address those circumstances if they arise.

A witness who refuses to give evidence or testify, can also find themselves jailed for contempt of court -

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/insight-forcing-rape-victims-testify-tips-scales-294688

The Courts aren’t adding to anything, it’s also not the function of the courts to fulfil the role of victims support services -

https://www.gov.uk/get-support-as-a-victim-of-crime

I don’t doubt it A, but more mainstream feminists in the UK at least have much greater concerns than the use of anyone’s preferred pronouns at trial. They’re still reeling from the fallout of Dame Cressida Dick’s oversight of the Met Police and the many scandals involving the conduct of officers under her leadership, as well as her decision to abandon the policy of automatic belief of complainants in sexual assault and rape cases given the disaster that turned out to be -

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-ditch-practice-of-believing-all-victims-jsg6qd2ws

Only matched by the litany of disasters among the male police officers and their attitudes to women on display during her time as head of the Met Police -

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-misogyny-that-led-to-the-fall-of-londons-police-commissioner

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

Surely you mean men in that case? That men don't behave like women? They most certainly do, some of them anyway, and they have done for quite some time. So much so that what has historically been regarded as the greatest threat to civilised society, in the UK anyway, was the threat of homosexual activity among men. I'm guessing you've never had cause to wonder where the idea of 'mollycoddling' came from? During the 18th century at least, venues like Mother Clap’s Molly House and Miss Muff's Molly House were popular with men. In their enthusiasm to pass laws prohibiting a behaviour which was considered so heinous that it could not be spoken of among Christian men, they kinda overlooked women, for about 200 years -

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made no change to the law regulating buggery committed between a man and a woman and, as a consequence, left in place the total prohibition of such acts. This was, at the time, regarded by some parliamentarians as an ‘extraordinary state of affairs, and one not less calculated to preserve respect for the law’.102 However, following the act of 1967, legislators consistently overlooked this aspect of buggery law because, as was often the case, buggery was mistakenly understood as a ‘homosexual offence’. This was probably also the case with the general public who, as Baroness Mallalieu argued in 1994, ‘are astonished to learn’ that consensual heterosexual buggery remained a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Nicola Sturgeon hasn't backtracked on anything, she had her leash yanked by the UK Government, and with regards to the case in hand, she didn't say what she is reported as having said in certain media outlets - this one being a good example -

“But I don’t think Douglas Ross and I are disagreeing here, because what I think is relevant in this case is not whether the individual is a man or claims to be a woman or is trans, what is relevant is that the individual is a rapist.

“That is how the individual should be described, and it is that that should be the main consideration in deciding how the individual is dealt with – that is why the individual is in a male prison, not in the female prison, these are the issues that matter.”

And the thing is, she's absolutely right - she correctly identifies the individual as a rapist, removing all doubt as to whether or not they were in possession of the requisite appendage at the time when they committed the offences which they had been charged with. Whether they continue to maintain possession of said appendage, or have since disposed of it, is irrelevant, as a charge of rape can only be applied if the individual possesses the requisite appendage. Women can be charged with rape under UK law, but as an accomplice. Otherwise they would stand to be charged with sexual assault, and that's where there may be considerable difficulty if anyone is troubled more by the idea of ambiguity around a person's gender, or statistics regarding same in terms of criminal offences committed. Circumstantial evidence about the prevalence of men who are violent is easily rebutted by the fact that the vast majority of men do not engage in any form of violence, nor do the vast majority of women.

I take it you're not referring to me personally, because as far as I'm concerned it's not even something worth questioning in the context you're trying to put it in to suggest that someone who the law regards as innocent be deprived of their right to fair procedures, not because you're certain they committed rape or sexual assault (and even then it couldn't be justified), but because in your mind it would somehow assuage the Lefties outrage, when one thing really has nothing to do with the other. Besides, I don't think it would achieve what you're hoping it would, given the UK Supreme Courts recent ruling on a similar issue -

UK Supreme Court rules against gender-neutral passports

I don't have to jump through hoops at all.