Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Trans woman given suspended sentence after judge says she would be vulnerable in jail

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. She ought to have been jailed.
    Being trans ought not to be accepted
    as a reason for her avoiding prison.
    It’s wrong in itself and it’s wrong
    as regards the several thousand
    other trans people who simply abide
    by the law and get on with their lives
    and who certainly do not deserve to be
    labelled as a result of this woman
    (and the woman in the other case)
    using this smarmy tactic to avoid
    just punishment. I am trans myself
    and these cases and this kind of
    tactic sicken me.

  2. The silly season brings yet more stories of trans people to the public to flog and demean. Let this be a lesson certain types of trans people out there, learn not to draw attention to yourself

    :(.

  3. Stuart Neyton 4 Aug 2010, 5:55pm

    My parents live just around the corner from there and, although i don’t know anyone involved, i grew up seeing Ms Krause walking around everywhere. She seemed like a lovely lady. Really quite shocking.

  4. PumpkinPie 5 Aug 2010, 2:06am

    Makes sense. If this was a ciswoman, she would merely be incarcerated for 12 weeks. As she is a transwoman, she will be incarcerated and have her life put at risk for 12 weeks. That’s a hell of a lot worse than the sentence the judge intended. Compared to the shallow waters of mere incarceration, having your very life endangered is right in at the deep end. It would have been completely disproportionate to her crime. Thus, the judge did the sensible thing by imposing an alternate sentence.

    I like when judges do this. Shows common sense and responsibility. The state only has the right to punish people insofar as it can also guarantee them humane and proportionate treatment. There was a time when judges would simply have thought “that’s their problem” and locked them up. It’s good to see that all the unnecessary and senseless deaths this caused made them wise up a bit.

    Also, this isn’t a case of trans people getting positive discrimination. Somebody in a previous thread summed it up perfectly: when transsexuals are put in jail, they’re punished both for their crime AND for being trans. Equal treatment is only truly equal if it leads to equal outcomes. No sense in risking someone’s life over a minor crime.

    PS: This woman sounds like she seriously needs some therapy. You know you’ve got a **** justice system if you lock up mentally disturbed people, thus making them even more unhinged, rather than treating them.

  5. This womanor whatever you want to call her should not have been traeted any different beacsue of gender problems and the judge should have made sure of this.
    She should have been treated like any othet person and sent to prison for her crime which sounds very disturbing.
    I get sick of hearing the lame excuses people come up with when it comes to courts sentencing people for their crimes and this is no excuse to escape jail.
    The crown should appeal the decsion in this case and award a custodial sentence to serve as a waring to others that just because you have a problem with your gender, you wont be givin preferentil treatment by the courts if you break the law. These people sya they want to be treated equally…then abide by the laws and you wont run the risk of prison…..simple as that.

  6. Pumpkin Pie, you’re right that Ms Krause might well be singled out by other prisoners and mistreated. She ought to have been aware of that and ought not to have broken the Law. Leaving aside ( but not forgetting ) the harm done to other law-abiding transpeople through the rightful perception of Krause and Voyce as having received privileged treatment (which they undoubtedly have), the question then comes up of where the line is drawn as to the seriousness of the crime a transperson would need to commit before a judge rules that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence. The public perception (and mine) is undoubtedly that these people have been found guilty but have “got off” jail terms because they have used their trans condition as a smarmy tactic to plead for privileged leniency. However this is looked at, it is wrong, it is a failure to deliver just punishment for their crimes. I do not believe there would be no way for these women to serve their prison terms in safety. I am also appalled that the vast majority of the several thousand trans people who live their lives with respect for the Law and for others in society have to be tarred with the perception of a privileged immunity (far from the true situation in other aspects of our lives, as any trans person will testify) that these unsavoury cases suggest judges will fall for. In the case of Krause and Voyse, reading of their crimes, frankly I do not get the impression of them being two women who would be incapable of taking care of themselves, even in prison.

  7. Liz Church 5 Aug 2010, 8:16am

    Justice has not been seen to be done, so the editor of the local paper has very kindly published a photograph of Ms Krause along with her address, so that anyone with a grievance can go and remonstrate with her in person. She can’t go anywhere because she’s under curfew and is only allowed out to walk her dog. Just in case no-one reads his rag, he’s sold the story and photographs to the Daily Mail and Telegraph. How very thoughtful.

  8. The problem is that, like ever other aspect of our society, the criminal justice system is built on the assumption that people are either strictly only ever male or strictly only over female, and there is only ever one single way to be either (wilful ignorance by this point); so when they have to deal with someone who lies outside those boundaries the courts (again, as with almost every other aspect of our society) flounder about with little or no idea what to do with them.

    Is the ‘solution’ they’ve found fair? Hardly. Of cause you could defiantly argue that it’s more fair that keeping her in solitary confinement for twelve weeks, or putting her into a male prison and effectively sentencing her to twelve weeks of assault and risk of murder. I’m curious though, why exactly couldn’t they send her to a women’s prison?

    Or, if she would have to be kept in solitary confinement regardless (generally intended to be a harsher punishment than prison alone), why not a reduced sentence in solitary confinement?

  9. OrtharRrith 5 Aug 2010, 9:13am

    As a transwoman I would expect that if I commited a crime (my usual crimes against cooking don’t count!) and was caught and found gulity, then I would expect to be sent to a womans prison. The fact that the courts seem to be umming and ahhhing over wiether a transwoman should be sent to a male or female prison I find very disturbing. That they are even consider a male prison horrifies me.
    And yes I am aware that a transman might still encounter some serious problems with being sent to a male prison. Maybe the answer is a trans-prison, although perhaps there isn’t enough trans prisoners to warrent the cost involved

  10. To be honest, the girl sounds like she needs to be sent for psychological evaluation – not imprisoned.

    BTW, I can’t read half of these reCAPTCHA verifications.

  11. PumpkinPie 5 Aug 2010, 3:38pm

    She ought to have been aware of that and ought not to have broken the Law.

    Even so, the judges have to be in control of the sentencing. If their are factors outside of their control they have to take that into account, as this one did.

    the question then comes up of where the line is drawn as to the seriousness of the crime a transperson would need to commit before a judge rules that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence.

    Personally, I’d draw the line either at a violent crime or at a certain length of sentence. I have no idea what length, though. Krause got a diddly 12 weeks and Voyse only had about 9 months. It would be interesting to see where the line is drawn. Actually, it would be interesting to see the justice system get its act together. But then I say that every time it does anything. :p

    Or, if she would have to be kept in solitary confinement regardless (generally intended to be a harsher punishment than prison alone), why not a reduced sentence in solitary confinement?

    This is a very good idea. I wonder why it wasn’t chosen?

  12. PumpkinPie 5 Aug 2010, 3:44pm

    Justice has not been seen to be done, so the editor of the local paper has very kindly published a photograph of Ms Krause along with her address, so that anyone with a grievance can go and remonstrate with her in person. She can’t go anywhere because she’s under curfew and is only allowed out to walk her dog. Just in case no-one reads his rag, he’s sold the story and photographs to the Daily Mail and Telegraph. How very thoughtful.

    Are you ****ing kidding me? What sort of wretched piece of filth regards making people the target of lynch mobs “justice”? Her crime was not a violent crime, she does not deserve this in the absolute slightest. It’s not her fault she got off without jail time. It’s the judge’s fault. Why hasn’t the judge’s address been posted? Oh, that’s right, the judge isn’t a dirty “crimmo”. In the minds of this society’s infantile, foamy-mouthed, vengeance-seeking imbeciles, that’s all that matters. Well, thanks to that cretin of an editor, she’s now going to have to have police bodyguards, all at the expense of the taxpayer. Nice one, moronic editor, I hope you get fired. Actually, him being sued by this woman would just be hilarious.

    No, seriously, even after that rant, the stupidity still makes my blood boil. Let’s go over it in brief one more time: “a judge let a woman off without jail time, so let’s all go to the woman’s house to complain about what the judge did”. Seriously?! People are really this stupid?! Wow.

    Bah, that’s Daily Mail readers for you. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up.

  13. OrtharRrith 5 Aug 2010, 4:10pm

    @Pumpkin Pie.

    That was precisely Liz’s point – although she said it with sarcasm. She wasn’t saying that Jan Krause should be targeted but that thanks to the paper printing her photo and address that she could be targeted and that’s wrong.

  14. PumpkinPie 5 Aug 2010, 6:33pm

    That was precisely Liz’s point – although she said it with sarcasm. She wasn’t saying that Jan Krause should be targeted but that thanks to the paper printing her photo and address that she could be targeted and that’s wrong.

    Ahaha… I actually did get that. I thanked her for bringing my attention to it in my final sentence, by which I meant I knew she was just giving us the info, not supporting it.

    I should have made that my FIRST sentence, shouldn’t I? Well, I’m very sorry, Liz, if you had to read through one of my trademark rage rants thinking it was aimed at you. When I’m raging at someone (in this case, that dummy editor and vigilante fans), I like to type as if I’m actually talking directly to them. Adds atmosphere. This has confused people in the past, too. :p

    Anyway, thanks for the proof-read, Orthar, and apologies if I inadvertantly caused any offense, Liz. :)

  15. OrtharRrith 5 Aug 2010, 7:25pm

    Rather annoyingly sarcasm and tone tend not to come across clearly on the internet – I’ll send a strongly worded email to the Government asking them to correct that oversight!
    It is scary though (on a serious note) that any newspaper can wind their readers up and then provide them with the details of a target to go after in the 21st century.

  16. It’s difficult to feel that Krause is entitled to sympathy or privileged consideration, if this account of her neighbour’s evidence is a true record of Krause’s behaviour:

    http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/news/8221499.Woman_denies_harassing_neighbours_for_six_years/

    The “trans defence” pleaded by Krause and Voyce to escape punishment for their crimes is, imo, harmful to the vast majority of trans people who do live peaceably and respect the Law and expect to take the consequences of their actions if they commit crimes. There must surely be institutions such as open prisons where women sentenced for “low level” crimes are held (we keep hearing these stories of hundreds of women being put in jail for not having paid their tv licences, for example) and these women could have gone to a place like that. Even that punishment would be a form of leniency but it would at least deprive them of their liberty, as their crimes would normally merit. No sympathy from me; if trans people are to be accepted into the mainstream of society, we cannot still be claiming special privilege in relation to our own actions unrelated to our transness.

  17. Jan Krause 6 Aug 2010, 11:03am

    FOR THE SAKE of balanced commentary and in expectation that PinkNews will wish to fulfill its obligations under the “Reynolds” libel defence and proceed in fairness to the subject of this story to publish this personal comment -

    1) JAN KRAUSE should wish for opportunity to clarify to the readers of this news-website that on the day of her sentencing for the so called ‘crime’ of sending back to her neighbour the 1580Hz mosquito-type nuisance tonal emission which her opposite neighbour had been broadcasting over her family’s home for a 5-year period, she did articulate to her solicitor that she wished be sent directly to prison – as a political statement aimed against the authorities and pending her intended appeal from judgment & sentence, yet her solicitor – who is bound by ethical duty as an officer of the Court, proceeded as only he could by arguing mitigating circumstances on behalf of his (wrongfully) convicted client.

    2) May it be stated that none of the commentators on this page have been privy to the confidential pre-sentence reports prepared for the consideration of Judge Sanders and no one truly knows what was operating on Mr Sanders’s mind on the occasion of his passing sentence, other than that he was drawn by the defence solicitor to partially reverse the judgment which he had given on conviction only 5 weeks prior, which appears to imply that Jan Krause’s conviction for harassment without violence has been rendered “unsafe”.

    3) And may it be confirmed that JAN KRAUSE is female in every necessary respect excepting that she is not in possession of the Gender Recognition Certificate that otherwise would have guaranteed her disposal to a female prison, which is why the Prison Service indicated to Judge Sanders that disposal would be to a male prison and in high security, in hope of guaranteeing the martyr’s safety! It is understood that Judge Sanders partakes in prison inspections and knows precisely the reality of a prison disposal including the gang system under which prison guards are coerced by each prison wing’s gang leader to operate. It would only be a matter of time before Jan Krause would be physically attacked – even in solitary ‘confinement’, and that applies to a Women’s Prison too, which appears to be where the Daily Mail’s phrase “because it would be too awkward” has originated from.

    4) Hope it’s not too much to ask but a little more empathy and humanitarian concern and a little less rash judgment might not go amiss on this news commentary website. Had your opposite neighbour blown a 1580Hz nuisance flue whistle down your ear for the past 5 years can you imagine that you might have been driven to the absolute of your wits end. The newspapers reported none of this.

    5) Balanced comment can be found here, with gratitude to T-zone -

    http://forums.transgenderzone.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=292

    6) And to anyone contemplating remonstrating with me or for whatever reason pursuing me to my home, the police fast response team has been placed on notice – notwithstanding that any intruder will be identified to police by my neighbours’ 24-hour high-resolution CCTV.

    With thanks for your kind consideration, Jan Krause (Miss)

    ———————————————————

  18. Is there any legal basis for the Prison Service apparently (para 3 of comment #17) having insisted on Miss Krause being registered under the Gender Recognition Act before they were able to send her to a prison for women? Surely a physical examination of her would have sufficed? I assume that she has also changed her name by deed poll and has her passport, driving licence, etc recognising her as female. I have heard stories of older trans women who apply for their State pensions also facing this difficulty. Has the Gender Recognition Certificate effectively now become yet another obstacle to trans people? Are these abuses of its purpose, which was, I understand, primarily to be able to obtain a birth certificate in the “acquired gender”?

  19. selacious-crumb 7 Aug 2010, 9:50am

    I’m more shocked at the lack of continuity in the legal system. There was a story on pink news about a pre-op trans-woman found guilty of attempted rape being sent to a womans prison.

    Sorry if it’s not fashionable to say this, but this trans-woman should have been sent away and put in a solitary. We have laws in this country to protect the wider community. If you play by the rules you don’t get into trouble. Simplez isn’t it ?

    As a trans-woman i’d like to be accepted by society, part of that acceptance is being treated the same as everyone else. There are official channels of complaint to negotiation neighbour disputes I would have thought the reasonable course of action would be to use these services and not take a “war footing”, which illustrates the protagonists outlook.

  20. S-c, comment #no. 19, I’d even go a bit further than you as regards acceptance by society of me as a trans woman. While I would love society to be unconditionally welcoming and accepting, I know that is far from the case and so I consciously behave and lead my life in a way that demonstrates that a trans person presents no risk or danger to anyone. While there will always be some who condemn and belittle “on principle” or according to their religious beliefs and who will never change (amen!), I also know from experience that many people are accepting if they see that the trans person is “the same as everyone else”. So a trans person who integrates into society without complexes in this “soft” way is making a personal contribution of great value to trans people as a whole, I would say a contribution as valuable as, perhaps more valuable than, strident and assertive trans advocates, who may well simply provoke fear, rejection and reaction. That is not a comment in respect of Jan Krause, btw, since we may not know all the circumstances of her case. However, since we ARE “the same as everyone else”, apart from the circumstances of our birth, then only if we accept the rules of life that apply to everyone will we be truly accepted.

  21. OrtharRrith 7 Aug 2010, 12:21pm

    The problem here (and by here I mean the justice system and not this particular case – although it does highlight things) is that the “Trans people want to be treated equal” and “the same as everyone else” falls apart when you actually look at what the Justice system was proposing for Jan Krause and Laura Voyce. Locking them in prison (as it currently stands) is not equal or the same as everyone else.
    Sending either of them to a male prison is barbaric, and sentencing them to solitary is also more then simply sending someone to prison. These types of sentences are far from fair or equal, no matter how you look at it.
    I don’t want to be treated differently because of what I like to think of as an unfortunate birth defect, and I doubt any of you do either; and whilst that means “do the crime and face doing the time” it shouldn’t mean extra punishment because the Courts decide that transpeople should be stuck in solitary confinement.

  22. OrtharRrith, comment #21, perhaps the judges’ hands are tied as to the kind of sentence they may pass? There must exist some alternative sentence involving recompense and re-education in “neighbour relations” but perhaps the judges in UK are not allowed to explore beyond the “rule book”? Perhaps they are restricted to “jail” or “not to jail”?

  23. Jan Krause 7 Aug 2010, 10:23pm

    IN REPLY TO COMMENT #19 and others:-

    1) Perhaps it’s worth repeating that solitary confinement would equate to a punishment for a ‘crime’ plus a further punishment just for being trans ie. a prospective breach of HRA Article 3 of Protocol 1, Degrading & Inhuman Treatment -

    2) The Prison Service might claim justification for arbitrary incarceration in “solitary” on grounds that it carries an overriding obligation to the protection of a VULNERABLE trans prisoner from being beaten, stabbed, slashed, sticked with an infected needle or serially raped, any and all of which scenarios would be the inevitable consequence of allowing a trans-prisoner free association amongst hardened villains.

    3) As to vaginal and anal rape, I am informed by a friend who once worked at the Educational Unit adjoining Brixton Prison that in a Mens’ Prison the ritual raping of an inmate is intended by the ‘wing-commander’ as a show of POWER to other inmates and an occurence to which prison staff are routinely forced to avert their eyes for the ‘greater good’ – for the maintenance of prison order.

    4) That is the VICIOUS REALITY which states that he/she would wish to subject the fresh faced Laura Voyce for her apparent criminal naivety and I for my non-crime. Thank you for you contribution to the debate Mr/Ms Crumb and no thank you for having forced this particular victim of the rotten ‘system’ onto a war footing -

    5) For information of the debate, ON A WAR-FOOTING actually means “a focus on survival and defence” – it’s not a declaration of war although Judge Sanders appears to have oh so conveniently contrived it as such – it not only spiced up his judgment but offered the press its meat! It was just a figure of speech – you do all know what figurative speech is don’t you?

    6) As to Women’s Prison, a seemingly hardened lady from the Probation Service spoke to me immediately after my sentencing on 29/7/10 informing me that the local disposal centre for women – Styal Prison, is one of the most terrible and violent of places, recounting that when she last visited Styal staff were reporting that they were having to cut self-harmers from their ligatures on an average of 20 to 30 occasions each Weekend. That, I am told, is the brutal and hitherto untold reality, truthfully recounted and intended to frighten me, which it did.

    7) It appears clear that the Press are picking us (trans) off as and when we become ‘available’ and it doesn’t require a criminal trial or even a criminal allegation, their recent outing of North Wales Constabulary’s only trans police officer being a shameful case in point, and at the current rate it is only a matter of time before they pick-off each and every one of us – so not much point keeping your head down then.

    8) Re comment #22: Non-jail sentences include Restraining Order; Curfew Order monitored by electronic tag; Order to live in a monitored Residential Unit; Community Service/Payback Order (max is 300hrs); Supervision Order; Hospital Treatment Order (NHS); Order requiring payment of compensation to complainant; Forfeiture Order; Treatment Orders for Alcoholism and/or Drug Addiction; Order forbidding the posting of 3rd party personal information on social networking sites and YouTube: Suspended Sentence (Damocles Sword) etc. As to re-education in “neighbourly relations” that’s a lost cause.

    9) Re comment #18: All documents have been in the female from 1993. I lost my way for fifteen years – was living as variant – now attempting to find my ‘way’ again as the woman I am, at threat of prison disposal in binary system. Original gender clinicians now retired/deceased (Hohberger) – hence no one available to write contemporaneous report for GRA – as you know, a mandatory requirement for obtaining a GRC.

    10) Re comment #21: The subject of this story has no pretensions to “equal treatment” – that’s a world away, a utopian dream – surely. An expectation to Fair Treatment would appear far more realistic. Stifling a defendant from bringing forward her defence at Trial is not fair treatment but that is the shocking state of our lower tier judicial system at this moment, which is moving away from tribunals of three in favour of single judges, who rule their domain like Lions and don’t they just know it.

    JK

    NB. Please refrain from posting personal information not in the public domain – thanks.

  24. JK, for the GRC, I understand that people who transitioned (as I did) some time before the GRA and for whom the “referral” procedures set out in the GRA are therefore redundant (or, as in your case, where the clinical notes are not retrievable) may be able to go to a “gender specialist doctor” who may be able to certify post-facto to the person’s transsexualism and that this kind of “evidence” would be acceptable to the panel. That’s merely my understanding. Perhaps Press for Change or Gender Trust could advise you on this. I’m not saying that, btw, so that you end up in jail! It’s simply a suggestion to help you to obtain your GRC.

  25. Jan Krause 10 Aug 2010, 1:42pm

    Re Comment by Jane — August 4, 2010 @ 16:17

    Jane! I am afraid you will not be escaping the consequences of your postings so easily -

    AT OUTSET OF THIS NEWS-WEBSITE commentary page you made it quite clear to anyone who would listen that you were BAYING for my blood and that of the other (undeserving) trans person and on sanctimonious grounds that our respective defence lawyers’ mitigation statements had allegedly villified the entire class of “law-abiding” UK trans persons, including bringing an entire heap of criminal innuendo directly upon you yourself.

    I am sure you are fully aware Jane that if either of the mortally tradduced persons the subject of this news story were to be sent to a Men’s Prison – or for that matter a Women’s Prison – and it appears to make little difference according to the Cheshire Probation Service, we would be given a ‘hard time’ to put it mildly, a prediction which with advantage to high insight both Judges in both cases have expressly adjudicated, as it is their stated belief that neither I not the other person (LV) were likely to survive our “punishment” ordeal intact.

    Jane, yours is a mindset which is to me as infuriating as it is diabolical, not least because you appear to fail to comprehend that your originating and cruel provocations have from outset set-upon stirring-up and unleashing trans-hatred not only against named individuals but reciprocally against yourself – by your misguided clamour for “justice” and by further inflaming public opprobrium against two persons who have exposed to the public gaze and both of whom are known to the Court and to wider society as especially vulnerable.

    I know you will not accept this for one moment Jane but if anybody is a traitor to the ’cause’ I would respectfully suggest that it MUST be you.

    Yes, I accept without a shadow of reservation that I am guilty of “failing to bring out the best in my opposite neighbour over a five year period” but that is NOT a crime known to English & Welsh law and should NOT have warranted my summary conviction for harassment without violence NOR my sentence on a first ‘offence’ basis to a 3 month term of imprisonment – to be served in solitary confinement and absent from any meaningful human contact, which as I am sure you are aware would be a devastating psychological blow to anyone.

    Given benefit to the measured statements that I have been FORCED to reveal on this public posting in exercise of my “right of reply” and in attempted defence of my good character – as I am giving serious consideration to raising a self-litigated libel action against Cavendish Press (Manchester) Ltd; The Daily Mail and others, perhaps JANE you will consider responding to the remaining interested readership of this commentary-posting as to whether, a week down the line (10/8/10), it still remains your stated wish that the Magistrates’ Court at Chester should enact its 3 month custodial sentence against this particular victim of the rotten judicial system?

    If you should continue to feel that the public interest and you personally have been cheated of your “pound of flesh” then may I suggest that it remains open to you to raise a hanging-petitition to the Magistrates’ Court at Chester addressed for the attention of District Judge Nicholas Sanders personally.

    Hopefully my last posting on this commentary page and sending my gratitude to all those who have provided supportive comments, all gratefully appreciated – thank you

    JK ……… unwilling subject of PinkNews bought-in news article with a few words shuffled around, dated 4 August 2010
    ____________________________________________________________

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all