Trans* OPCA gurus

[noblepa]

It's a shame that story doesn't say when the person was charged with the offence. Apparently they changed their name and received a gender recognition certificate in 2016 so to my mind if the person was charged after that date in their former name and gender then the case shouldn't be allowed to proceed as they have indeed charged somebody who no longer exists. To allow the charges to be amended would make a mockery of the Gender Recognition Act 2015 as it would amount to the state saying "We officially recognise your gender in accordance with the law except when we arbitrarily decide we're not going to".

If the person was charged before their legal transition then obviously that's a different matter but I would definitely award ten out of ten for a novel defence.

Except that the argument for gender modification is almost always "I've always been a woman trapped in a man's body" or vice versa. So, by their own argument, they ARE the same person they have always been. They just want to change the external manifestations of that fact.

I believe that they ARE the same person, regardless of gender alteration. In this context (criminal charges), it is exactly the same as a woman getting married and taking her husband's last name, or someone legally changing their name. One can't escape criminal charges or legal debts by the simple expedient of changing your name.

If convicted, a transgender person should probably be sent to a prison appropriate for their NEW gender, not that of their birth. But I don't see how the charges can be dismissed.

[longdog]

One can't escape criminal charges or legal debts by the simple expedient of changing your name.

Of course not but if this is a case where the police and prosecution have gratuitously or negligently ignored the recognition by the state of the person's new name and gender it's difficult to see how that's compatible with the aims of the Gender Recognition Act. What's the point of the state passing laws if it's then going to ignore them itself.

My guess here is that the person has been charged with a minor drugs offence and somebody, somewhere along the line, has fucked up and used old data. Again I'm guessing but I assume the time limit has now expired and the prosecution are trying to amend the charges because they can't re-charge with the correct details.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

However i refer to each by the gender they were born with biologically. And none have any real problem with it.

Sounds like the old "I have black friends who I call 'Sambo' down the pub, but they never had a problem with it" excuse.

I have a transgender friend, who I admit I didn't know had transitioned when I met her so I have always referred to her as her, but it is the height of rudeness to deliberately not do so.

perhaps the mental illness and trans gender are related.

Quite disgusting.

Not to be an a-hole

You are entitled to your own opinion.

As for the main question, mistakes in name are not sufficient to avoid prosecution as long as they correctly identify the individual. There may be cause for action if it can be demonstrated that the "mistake" was done maliciously, but that would be a separate case and not a defence.

Of course, this case is in Ireland and so all our legal pontifications could be complete b*ll*cks!

[Siegfried Shrink]

One good thing, it would be quite easy to turn a strawman into a strawwoman and vice versa.

[longdog]

As for the main question, mistakes in name are not sufficient to avoid prosecution as long as they correctly identify the individual. There may be cause for action if it can be demonstrated that the "mistake" was done maliciously, but that would be a separate case and not a defence.

Of course, this case is in Ireland and so all our legal pontifications could be complete b*ll*cks!

I suspect Ireland is pretty much the same as the UK and each case would be judged on its own merits. Getting a summons for John Smith when your name is John Smyth is one thing. Getting one for Fred Bloggs when your name is John Smith is a whole other matter.

I suspect in this case the judge is probably going to allow the amendment to the charge as the person named was the person in question and that's good enough. Either way it's a novel argument to make and it'll be interesting to see the outcome.

[longdog]

However i refer to each by the gender they were born with biologically. And none have any real problem with it.

Sounds like the old "I have black friends who I call 'Sambo' down the pub, but they never had a problem with it" excuse.

I have a transgender friend, who I admit I didn't know had transitioned when I met her so I have always referred to her as her, but it is the height of rudeness to deliberately not do so.

perhaps the mental illness and trans gender are related.

Quite disgusting.

Not to be an a-hole

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Agreed in all details.

As I said before on this thread if anybody deliberately used the birth gender of my trans mates with the intent of upsetting them they'd be looking at a "fuck off now" or a punch in the cakehole.

"And none have any real problem with it."

If anybody is so insensitive as to not use a person's preferred gender, when it would cost them nothing to just be polite, they're probably not going to realise they have offended the person anyway.

[Tevildo]

I'd like to move that this thread be closed, as it appears to be descending into political argument with little relevance to the board subject matter.

[longdog]

Treating people with respect isn't a political argument it's just common decency.

[notorial dissent]

As to the comment that started this, and I may be completely confused here, but if the charge is against the "person" in question, the it should stand regardless of them having changed their name since that was who they were when they were charged. I also suspect there is more here than was reported.

[longdog]

As to the comment that started this, and I may be completely confused here, but if the charge is against the "person" in question, the it should stand regardless of them having changed their name since that was who they were when they were charged.

Reading between the lines I assume that's not what happened and the person had been charged under a name and gender which was already long since out of date. I very much doubt a court would give an "I changed my name and gender after being charged so that's not me" defence the time of day so that's highly unlikely to be the case here.

Again reading between the lines I assume there's some sort of statute of limitations which prevents the charges being reissued in the correct name so the prosecution are seeking to amend the existing charges to side-step that issue.

It will be interesting to see how willing the court is in tolerating a fundamental error on the charge sheet like having the wrong name and gender.

ETA: According to Wikipedia Irish law is the same as UK law and summary offence charges have to be made within six month of the offence or the complaint.

[Gregg]

I'd like to move that this thread be closed, as it appears to be descending into political argument with little relevance to the board subject matter.

I'm not going to just yet, but good point, let's keep in the boundaries.

[grixit]

Treating people with respect isn't a political argument it's just common decency.

I say, you wanna change your parts, hey, change your parts. But if you just change your clothes and name, then don't demand that *i* change your pronouns. I deserve common decency too.

That being said, unless said person's new self starts out with nothing, then they are obviously the sole heir of their old self, and therefor of all their liabilities.

[Burnaby49]

You were all warned.