Women in prison already face a healthcare system that routinely fails them. But when official legal correspondence adopts a hostile, accusatory tone, such as that sent by Christopher Bates on Government Legal Department letterhead, following a pre-action letter by Scott Laing of Bhatia Best, the damage goes far beyond words. It attempts to retraumatises, silence and obstruct access to life‑preserving medical treatment. This is not just a professional failing — it is a feminist issue.
The hidden violence of official language
For women in prison, violence does not always look like bruises or broken bones.
Sometimes it arrives in the form of a letter — typed, formatted, and signed by a government lawyer.
Language can be a weapon.
Tone can be a form of control.
And when the state speaks with hostility, suspicion or contempt, it reinforces the same patterns of coercion and disbelief that many criminalised women have lived with their entire lives.
In a system where women are already disproportionately traumatised, disproportionately silenced, and disproportionately medically neglected, the tone of official correspondence is not a side issue.
It is part of the machinery of harm.
When the state responds with hostility instead of care
Women in prison are more likely to have:
- survived domestic abuse
- survived coercive control
- survived sexual violence
- survived state violence
- survived medical neglect
They are also more likely to have complex trauma, PTSD, and chronic health conditions.
So when a woman with aggressive cancer challenges the state — asking for nothing more radical than access to the treatment her doctors prescribed — the response she receives matters.
When that response is:
- hostile
- accusatory
- dismissive
- personalised
- or laced with insinuations
…it does more than breach professional etiquette.
It retraumatises.
It silences.
It reinforces the message that women in prison are not believed, not valued, and not entitled to dignity.
The View has reported for years on the violence of disbelief
Disbelief is one of the most powerful tools of institutional misogyny.
Women in prison are routinely disbelieved when they report:
- pain
- trauma
- abuse
- medical symptoms
- mental health crises
- risk
- fear
This disbelief is not neutral.
It is gendered.
It is racialised.
It is classed.
And it is deadly.
When official legal correspondence echoes that disbelief — by questioning a woman’s honesty, dismissing her medical evidence, or implying manipulation — it becomes part of the same continuum of violence.
Hostile legal correspondence is not just unprofessional — it is a barrier to healthcare
For a woman with cancer, legal processes are often the only route to accessing treatment.
When government lawyers use hostile language, the consequences are not theoretical.
It can:
- delay treatment
- distort decision‑making
- influence prison staff
- legitimise dismissive attitudes
- undermine clinical evidence
- retraumatise a vulnerable woman
- and ultimately, shorten her life
This is not an exaggeration.
It is the lived reality of women in prison whose healthcare depends on the goodwill of institutions that have already failed them.
Trauma‑informed practice is not optional
The Ministry of Justice, NHS England and the courts all recognise that women in custody are a vulnerable population.
They require:
- dignity
- sensitivity
- respect
- careful communication
- avoidance of retraumatisation
When official correspondence ignores these principles, it is not merely discourteous.
It is harmful.
A woman with cancer should not have to read legal letters accusing her of dishonesty when her medical records say otherwise.
She should not be confronted with hostile commentary when she is fighting for access to chemotherapy.
She should not be retraumatised by language that mirrors the abuse she has already survived.
The feminist analysis: this is state violence
When the state uses hostile language against a vulnerable woman, it is not an isolated incident.
It is part of a broader pattern:
- disbelief
- minimisation
- dismissal
- coercion
- control
This is the same pattern that criminalises women who defend themselves.
The same pattern that ignores women’s pain.
The same pattern that denies women in prison access to basic healthcare.
Hostile legal correspondence is not a clerical issue.
It is a feminist issue.
It is a justice issue.
It is a human rights issue.
Why accountability matters
Professional standards exist for a reason.
They are meant to protect the public — especially the most vulnerable — from the misuse of state power.
When those standards are not upheld:
- vulnerable women lose trust
- legal processes become distorted
- public confidence erodes
- and the fairness of the system collapses
The View has always argued that justice is not just about courts and laws.
It is about how institutions treat the people who depend on them, especially vulnerable women; and we are pleased to announce that the Feminist Justice Coalition has submitted a complaint about Christopher Bate’s misconduct to the Bar Standards Board. If you would like a copy please email hello@theviewmag.org.uk.
When the state speaks with hostility to a woman fighting for her life, it tells us everything we need to know about whose lives are valued — and whose are not.
Opinion article by The View.