Rapists can no longer claim to be women
Rapists will no longer be able to identify as women following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.
Forces are now expected to begin recording criminals' birth sex rather than preferred gender in official crime statistics following the ruling, which stated that trans women are not the same as biological women under equality laws.
It will end a situation where some police forces record rapists as being women, even though the legal definition of the crime requires a penis.
Campaigners, including gender critical police officers, have hailed the move as a victory for common sense and have said it will help restore public confidence in policing.
Current guidance from the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) recommends forces ask suspects if they are 'male', 'female' or 'intersex'.
But it goes on to state that: 'Using the term 'gender' as a substitute for the term 'sex' is not appropriate as gender is not a protected characteristic.
'Gender is a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity.'
Official statistics
However, not all forces follow the guidance and a recent report into the way public bodies collect data on sex and gender revealed that at least 12 police forces allowed rape suspects and other sexual offenders to self declare their preferred gender identity.
This means men arrested on suspicion of violent sexual attacks can self-identify as a woman and be recorded as such on official statistics.
The records form part of the annual data requirement (ADR), submitted by every police force in England and Wales to the Home Office.
Last year, in a change of policy, Police Scotland announced that rape suspects would no longer be able to self identify as female.
It followed controversy over the case of Adam Graham who began identifying as a woman named Isla Bryson while awaiting trial accused of two rapes.
After being convicted and jailed for eight years, Bryson was initially sent to a women's prison, but he was subsequently moved following a public outcry.
Following the scandal, the NPCC announced a review into the issue in England and Wales, but it has yet to report.
Police sources who have examined the Supreme Court ruling in detail believe it will sweep away the current confusion around transgender sex offenders.
David Spencer, head of crime and justice at the Policy Exchange, said it was time for policing to adopt a common sense approach.
He said: 'This week's judgment by the UK Supreme Court shines a light on policies across the public sector.
'An independent review this year found police forces do not consistently record the natal sex of alleged sex offenders – meaning suspected rapists may not be accurately recorded in police records.
'This could have grave consequences for whether the police are able to effectively investigate sexual offences.
'This is the sort of nonsense which leads to the public losing confidence in the police. As Policy Exchange has repeatedly made clear - it is long past time for police chiefs to adopt a common-sense approach to their work.'
A spokesman for the group SEEN UK, a network of serving officers who hold gender critical beliefs, also welcomed the ruling and urged all forces to ensure full compliance with the Equality Act 2010, as clarified by the court.
He said: 'The police service is bound by a duty to uphold the law impartially and without fear or favour. That duty must not be compromised by political or ideological pressures.
'The rights of women and girls, especially those enshrined in sex-based protections, are a matter of law, not preference.
'The Supreme Court has now spoken with clarity. The responsibility to act in accordance with that ruling rests squarely with those entrusted to enforce the law.'
Chief Constable Rachel Swann, chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council's diversity, equality and inclusion committee, said: 'I welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and we will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome.
'We will need time to consider the full implications of the court's decision, as will many other public bodies.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 hours ago
- Reuters
Oklahoma says it will retry death-row inmate, after US Supreme Court tossed conviction
June 9 (Reuters) - Four months after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip's murder conviction and granted him a new trial, Oklahoma's attorney general said on Monday that he will retry him and seek a life sentence. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who supported Glossip's appeal to the Supreme Court of his conviction for commissioning a murder for hire, said that he will not pursue the death penalty for Glossip, who had argued on appeal that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence during his original trial. Drummond said he was not seeking the death penalty this time because the man who admitted to killing the victim in the murder-for-hire plot is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. 'While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,' Drummond, a Republican, said in a statement announcing his office's decision. A spokesperson for Drummond's office said they did not have a date for the trial, but that Glossip's next court date is June 17. Don Knight, an attorney for Glossip, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Drummond's office reexamined the case after the justices, in a 5-3 ruling authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reversed a lower court's decision that had upheld Glossip's conviction and had allowed his planned execution to move forward despite his claim that prosecutors had acted improperly. Glossip, now 62, was originally convicted of commissioning a murder and sentenced to death for the killing of Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip was a manager. He has spent 27 years in prison. All parties agree Van Treese was fatally beaten with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed, who eventually became the star witness for the prosecution. Sneed, who was a methamphetamine addict, confessed to the murder but avoided capital punishment by accepting a plea deal that involved testifying that Glossip paid him $10,000 to do it. Glossip admitted to helping Sneed cover up the murder after it occurred but denied knowing Sneed planned to kill Van Treese or encouraging him to do so. The evidence disclosed in 2023 by Drummond — including a prosecutor's hand-written notes from a meeting with Sneed — cast doubt on Sneed's credibility, according to Glossip's lawyers. They said they were kept in the dark about Sneed receiving psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder immediately after his arrest, and that prosecutors failed to correct Sneed's false statement about his prescription for the medication lithium.
NBC News
13 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
North Wales Chronicle
13 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. 'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling. In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… — Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025 Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
