"If police are called, either by one of the parties or as often happens by neighbours or even children, and they arrive to find a bruised and sobbing victim, a bit of broken furniture, and a couple of distraught kids, then an offence has almost certainly been committed."
Well, quite. Let's not worry with any of that old fashioned stuff, 'evidence'. Let's skip the trial too, to save any embarrasment if the alleged assaultee changes his/her mind.
Why not just issue a fine or prison sentence on the spot?
"Nevertheless it is right to recognise that in a typical abusive relationship the abuser will be a man, and that the woman has a great deal to lose by trying to do something about it."
So, let's switch to a system where she doesn't have to do anything about it and the other guy (or gal, to be all modern and permissive - how are you planning to broach THAT little problem..?) has no say in the matter at all.
Yup, can't see anything wrong with that...
"...they might end up in some rat-hole of a battered women's refuge..."
Ouch!
No doubt any battered women's refuge administrators will be along to comment on that too....
No doubt any battered women's refuge administrators will be along to comment on that too....
And if we're lucky, they'll do it as cogently and intelligently as you!
JuliaM:
"Let's not worry with any of that old fashioned stuff, 'evidence'.
Erm, I think you’ll find that Bystander then went on to say that "only evidence will do". Or were you too busy rushing for your keyboard to have another angry rant to read his post properly?
Really, you need to be careful with all your anger – high blood pressure is a killer you know!
In the late 19th century a distant (English, and male) relative of mine published a pamphlet detailing the low value placed by the courts on women's lives and health when those women were endangered by their husbands: fines of a few shillings were commonplace for quite serious physical assaults.
The lack of successful prosecutions then was blamed on lack of evidence. I can't help but wonder if as a society we really have made so little progress in this matter.
That said, when I was trained as a voluntary counsellor for a DV help line, and later, in the police, I was told that the usual hearts-and-flowers-to-assault cycle lasted approximately 3 months on average and that it took a woman on average eight attempts to leave before she might actually leave, successfully, and stay gone.
So rather than viewing each alleged assault as an isolated event, it makes sense to look at the pattern of behaviour evinced by both parties. There will come a time when the vic will testify. If the police can manage to collect hard evidence from previous assaults it should be possible to bring that back and make a case for having the previous events addressed in court also.
Nota bene: this was in a different country and I am not a PC now, so my view may not apply to English courts.
"....were you too busy rushing for your keyboard to have another angry rant.."
Steady on, I'm not Galloway, you know... 
Yes, I did read that bit. However, it came before the 'nevertheless, we should...' assumptions of guilt on the part of the male because 'a typical abusive relationship, blah blah'.
Julia are you suggesting that the statement "in a typical abusive relationship the abuser will be a man" is not true?
(And if so, what would you say IS the nature of such a relationship?).
The law requires magistrates to make assumptions all the time before a trial has begun (mainly to ensure that when the trial takes place it is a fair one for all parties concerned). Are you suggesting that ANY assumption about any legal matter is de facto wrong?
@Julia, Biker: I seem to remember reading that 20% of domestic violence is woman on man. To simply assume on the basis that you are 80% likely to be right is not good practise.
"I seem to remember reading that 20% of domestic violence is woman on man."
Same sex relationships are going to skew that statistic before long.
I guess then magistrates have to judge on the basis of who has the deeper voice or wears the most ugly pair of dungarees...?
Dealing with DV cases via the law is very difficult but considerable strides have been made and continue to be made to improve matters. Here is a link to a recent report:
http://www.crimereduction.homeof...k/dv/
dv018a.pdf
This report talks about "Specialist Domestic Violence Courts" with magistrates who have received special training. However, there are other magistrates' courts which operate listing arrangements which put DV cases into one of their courts on certain days of the week. There seems to be no standard model.
So far, in my view the Home Office deserve considerable credit since it is they who have encouraged these developments which require a lot of inter-agency work.
In the County Court it is possible to obtain a "Non Molestation Order." The judges used to be able to attach a power of arrest to those orders and deal with breaches as contempts of court. Recently, breaches were made a criminal offence with the result that few are actually being charged. I have even heard of cautions being administered. The position is no at all satisfactory. On this point, the the government deserve criticism. Making breaches a criminal offence sounded good politically but is a disaster practically.
@anonimouse.
That's the Crime Survey of 2001/2002? It was 19% actually, and in only half of the reported cases were females the abuser.
So - as a basis for an assumption regarding DV in a heterosexual relationship - I feel safe with it. No assumptions, by definition, are of course safe : but that does not diminish their value as a basis for thinking.
"Not simple is it?" - Bystander
In some ways it is simple (once the matter is at Court). If the defendant pleads Not Guilty, is there evidence strong enough to convict? DV should be no different than other cases and assumptions have no place.
I am wary about Specialist DV Courts because I think it's possible that there may be some risk of assumptions creeping in - or at least be perceived to have done so. That perception may be made more likely by references to Magistrates to be "specially trained" for such cases - or such cases to be heard by only a limited "selected" subset of Magistrates. It seems to me that one of the advantages of our system is that JPs generally do not hear the same kind of case day in day out. Some cases (depending on exactly what is charged) may be heard in the Crown Court - are we to have specialist juries too? Or perhaps specialist DJs even?
Nor do I believe there is much of a case for specialist Courts when it comes to sentencing. Sentencers will need to decide on the "best" sentence in each case - assisted usually by a PSR which will indicate, for example, whether IDAP might be suitable. Why should any special subset of JPs be better at taking such decisions than others (or take bail decisions etc etc)?
None of this is to say that DV is not serious, nor that Magistrates be untrained or uninformed. Nor to pretend that DV does not happen; nor that the Courts have no part to play.
We have no magic wand.
"If she moves out she loses much of her income"
er.. surely she loses (much of) her partners income?
Looks like there is a political appetite for lowering the barriers in criminal justice standards all round. In the long term, I am thinking why not? It is one of the uglier aspects of democracy that it tends towards rule by the majority for the majority.
Special courts for this that and the other, bye bye double jeopardy, moves to shift the boundaries on rape cases, its all happening. Dog whistle policy to be sure but it has a constituency.
Now I should feel outraged about these changes because I know that they will lead to more injustice. I am actually thinking that after a very long run of liberal criminal justice reforms, the workings of the system has moved beyond the point where it can sit in the quiet backgrounds of our lives. The system is becoming the story rather than those who are moved through it.
For a long time, the criminal justice goose has laid a lot of golden eggs but now fixed fees and the Public Defender are upon us. The goose is dead and I don't think many people care.
As I was standing in front of 9 such abusers tonight, I thought about how they would contribute to this debate.
I talked to them about how they felt, regarding the system of Justice that had brought them into 27 sessions of talking to me.
One response was typically candid.
"Initially mate, I thought this programme was a bunch of bunnywank.
But you've made me question the way I operate. This is the first time anyone has had the bottle to make me think differently. The best bit you've said is about those SDB's"
SDB's= Self-Defeating Behaviours
Your average man with low-self esteem doesn't really get what he wants through violence.
Once he recognises hitting and punching actually kills the golden goose, you've got him by the balls.
JVIP
If violence doesn't work why have you got him by the balls?
In truth violence nearly always works - that is why police carry weapons and have prisons.
They need to have the more violence than the villain.
Katherine said " the usual hearts-and-flowers-to-assault cycle lasted approximately 3 months on average and that it took a woman on average eight attempts to leave before she might actually leave, successfully, and stay gone.
"
But often it does not "stay gone" because some girls/women like being partnered with 'hard-men' or edgey geezers and having escaped one DV situation promptly land themselves in another.
What is so common in these cases is the typical mantra of the perpetrators.
A colleague recently moved from being a practicing solicitor to an advisory role in a women's anti-violence NGA. When he calls me, occasionally; in moments of black humour, I answer by saying:
If she hadn't said that, I wouldn't have belted her.
or
She asked for it
One town in Oz (near the Queensland border) is notorious for cases collapsing when the complainant doesn't turn up to court as prosecution witness for breaches of domestic violence orders. We call this the "Boggabilla Defence"
Of course, when taking instructions from the client in custody, reading out the police facts sheet to them, the usual reply is:
I don't remember that, I was pissed at the time. So I'm pleading not guilty.
To my thinking, one way to attack this problem is to raise taxes on alcohol to outrageous levels, but that would likely result in bootlegging and/or home grown 'hooch' so I'm really buggered if I know what the solution is.
Because it happens on the day I generally sit, I have sat in our dv court on a number of occasions. It is only 'specialist' in the sense that one particular prosecutor is assigned to it (with presumably an interest and/or additional training). Most of us here have had the dv training but, as BS noted, it is only around the issues, and not about treating the case any differently from others. Generally we have a few dv cases mixed into an otherwise normal list.
One interesting thing I have noticed is that we get a far higher percentage of suits in the dock than 'ordinary' court lists; contrary to the suggestion made elsewhere, it's certainly not just drunks from the local sink estate beating each other up at home; it's very much a middle class problem as well.
SJP - may I heartily agree. Too many cosy middle class types sneer at DV cases as a council house thing. Not so - it goes across all classes. As a glaring example, just have a look at Dominic Carman's biography of his late father George. One of the most renowned QCs in the land was a drunken wife beater.
Indeed Bystander. He was. As is
http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/...89520-20338693/
and
http://www.devachat.com/
index.ph...showtopic=47031
and all these people from across the pond too.
Its a common thread across the world.
http://endabuse.org/celebritywat...ndex.php?
Fame=N
JVIP
Clarissa Dickson-Wright's v. v. posh dad, also.
Not sure why you're citing Kershaw, though: from every report I've seen, he seems like a pathetic victim (and not one who's ever laid a hand on her), and she a cruel witch who's basically had him sent to jail for failing to get over her...
Family violence education is vital, and not just for the courts.
- take education of police (while standing policies are pretty good in my antipodean state) - it's still not changing attitudes...
Every few weeks lately, I've prosecuted yet another copper who has terrorized, abused, or beaten up a (usually his) spouse of child.
Sad thing is, the same cops are the folk we rely upon to protect out community and prosecute DV.
No wonder prosecutions don't stick.
@john b: From what I can tell, it seems that wife discovered Kershaw had affair, walked out, and didn't like it when she moved on to someone else.
It's my impression he's been stomped on for small infractions as a result of his previous actions.
"Nevertheless it is right to recognise that in a typical abusive relationship the abuser will be a man, and that the woman has a great deal to lose by trying to do something about it"
It is WRONG assumption that will force men to stay in violent relationships because YOU the judge will not believe them as the woman is always right.
In any seperation that involves children (and from what I've seen that is where it is most common for DV) the MAN has most to lose. For being the victim he can lose his kids, house, money, and health.
How many divorce proceedings (non celebrity) have you seen, witnessed or heard about where the man got the house where kids were involved...... 8%. That's the percentage of Dads that are raising kids alone.
8% that didn't lose everything. So who has more to lose?
Commenting by HaloScan
