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,

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!

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.