Now judges lose the plot on political correctness

They’re told not to say ‘ lady’, ‘postman’ or ‘immigrant’ in court – just in case it upsets defendants and witnesses

JUDGES have been told what they can and cannot say in an effort to make all those who come before their courts feel they have been treated fairly.

They have been banned from using phrases and words including ‘ethnic minority’; ‘ afro- Caribbean’ and ‘transsexual’ – while a postman should become a ‘postal operative’.

The new guidance for judges and magistrates says real equality means favouring women and minorities to make up for the disadvantage they suffer.

Part of this equality drive includes a fresh list of terms and expressions that judges should no longer use.

The extensive instructions on language in court insist that ‘using acceptable terminology avoids offending the relevant party or witness and gives confidence that they will receive a fair hearing’.

The rules also recommend that courts should be slow to send women to prison because jail terms are more damaging to them than men.

Transgender criminals, the guidance adds, are ‘ highly apprehensive’ about prison. Courts should be taken into private session, or publicity about a trial restricted, if the evidence is likely to expose the fact that someone has changed sex. The guidance – the 422-page Equal Treatment Bench Book – is published by the Judicial College, the body in charge of training judges, which is led by an Appeal judge, Dame Anne Rafferty.

It is the latest update to equality rules that were first produced under Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine in 1999, and ran into controversy after recommending that the courts should show leniency to Rastafarians because they regard smoking cannabis as a religious rite. ‘True equal treatment may not always mean treating everyone in the same way,’ the new version says. Fair treatment, judges are told, means that ‘steps can be taken, where appropriate, to redress any inequality arising from difference or disadvantage.’

The Bench Book adds: ‘Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their lives.

‘The previous life experiences of women offenders,

‘Treat them differently’

their reasons for offending, their offending patterns, the impact of custodial sentences on themselves and their dependants, and the longterm effect of prison sentences all tend to differ between men and women.

‘The impact of imprisonment on women, more than half of whom have themselves been victims of serious crime, is especially damaging and their outcomes are worse than men’s.’ If a prison sentence for a woman was really necessary, judges should consider suspending it, the guidance says.

It quoted a former liberal US Supreme Court judge, Justice Blackmun, on why people should be treated differently on race grounds. The US judge said: ‘In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.’

A section on transgender people said the term transsexual should be dropped because ‘some people find it stigmatising’.

Courts should not reveal that someone was born in a different sex to that in which they appear, unless it was necessary. In such circumstances, the information, the guidance said, should be kept from the public, along with some or all details about the case – a rule that puts transgender sensitivities above the need for open justice.

Judicial College chief Lady Justice Rafferty said in a foreword to the book: ‘The profound desire of the team responsible for this revision is that all those in and using a court leave it conscious of having appeared before a fairminded tribunal.’

The guidance says women criminals often have troubled lives. ‘Women’s offending can be linked to underlying mental health needs, drug and alcohol problems, coercive relationships, financial difficulties and debt,’ it says.

It also warns: ‘Women are particularly vulnerable to online harassment, exploitation, manipulation and intimidation. Judges need to appreciate the central role that social media plays in the lives of many women, with its own set of norms and values which may be unfamiliar.’

The guidance also told judges that they might take account in family cases of decisions made by Islamic sharia tribunals.

However, a report for the Home Office earlier this year found that women frequently suffer blatant discrimination in sharia divorce cases.