Or as they say in certain places 'It ain't over till the (fat) lady sings'.
It's about what she sings.
That would never happen in France. Usually, the victim goes to the police station, and her statement is written by the police officer. Then she is sent immediately to the Judiciary Emergency Room where a doctor describes the wounds she bears. So all the proofs are yet in the case.
If at the hearing, the victim refuses to press charges (and that happens quite often), the court still has all the necessary to convict the defendant. The victim only loses her right for compensation.
And in these cases where a domination of the culprit upon the victim is obvious, the courts are usually more severe. So it doesn't help at all if the victim withdraws her complaint. The least the Court will do is issue an order prohibiting the culprit from entering in contact in any way with her victim.
"We couldn't possibly punish the victim for refusing to give evidence..."
'Victim'...? Just what exactly is she a 'victim' of, given that the case didn't proceed?
We, the taxpayers, are the victims here, and the only victims. We have to pay for the whole sorry mess.
"She had made a withdrawal statement eight weeks ago, so the CPS, as is their policy, issued her with a Witness Summons."
Well, change the damn policy then! Typical waste of money to appease some pressure group.
"We, the taxpayers, are the victims here, and the only victims."
Eh? Surely the questions of whether the woman was a victim of assault, and of whether her husband was guilty of common assault on her, are not the same.
He has been acquitted of common assault in a court of law - but that doesn't mean that she wasn't beaten up, any more than the exoneration of Timothy Evans proved that Geraldine Evans hadn't been murdered...
"He has been acquitted of common assault in a court of law - but that doesn't mean that she wasn't beaten up.."
It doesn't mean she was, either.
So she's bruised, so what...? It doesn't necessarily follow that she got that from an assault.
Whilst witnesses are often the lifeblood of the criminal justice system, there are many reasons why they will prefer not to testify. At least the system has made major steps forward in trying to offer victims of DV a better deal. I sincerely hope that the suggestion in this report that all magistrates undertake DV training is taken up.
There have been cases of murder and other very serious criminal charges in which witnesses have been summonsed; treated as hostile witnesses; even sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to testify. Faced with this scenario, they would rather go to prison than face the thugs on the streets.
I am pleased that JuliaM has either a wonderful marriage or is single as she clearly has absolutely no conception of the sheer hold one partner can have over another.
Having been on the DV training that Peter mentions above, I can assure her that after years of continuing harassment, indirect and subtle threats against the victim or other members of the victims family including children and sometimes elderly parents, psychological manipulation undermining your confidence and beliefs and simple financial control, it is not so easy just to shrug your shoulders and walk away to the nearest hostel or refuge.
But then, it's always so easy to blame the victim isn't it? Indeed that's just what the aggresor will have been doing for all those years...
Presumably the police had taken a statement from her and recorded her injuries at the time of the alleged assault. Is this evidence not admissable in court?
Steve.
" I am pleased that JuliaM has either a wonderful marriage or is single as she clearly has absolutely no conception of the sheer hold one partner can have over another. "
Little flaw in the logic there, 'southlondonjp'. No domestic violence ever occurs between non-marrieds..?
"Having been on the DV training that Peter mentions above..."
Ah, you've had your conditioning then. Good, can't expect you to deal with the cases before you without having the proper 'cultural training' in domestic violence, can we?
"..it's always so easy to blame the victim isn't it?"
I say again, what 'victim'...?
Many cases have a victim but never result in a court conviction.
JuliaM... you are a very fortunate lady if you have not suffered the abuse a DV victim suffers. I obviously have no idea as to what your professional life entails but if you have no regular contact with genuine DV victims similarly you can be forgiven for not knowing or understanding the issues involved. You should note that I said 'genuine' victims because there clearly are victims who regularly report incidents but who are clearly not victims in the traditional sympathetic sense, they just live a lifestyle that involves regular tit-for-tat calls.
On the subject of Specialist DV Courts, I have heavy involvement in one such venture and can assure readers that it is not the panacea you might imagine, in fact it is a farce. Some cases start in the court but go to others to be concluded. Others start elsewhere but end up in the court at the late stages. Other cases never see the court at all. Specialst training for CPS/Magistrates?... not in our area.
"...if you have no regular contact with genuine DV victims similarly you can be forgiven for not knowing or understanding the issues involved.....On the subject of Specialist DV Courts, I have heavy involvement in one such venture.."
Perhaps it's because I don't, that I'm thinking clearly on the subject?
Unlike you, who appears to have identified far too closely with them.
An interesting twist of logic.
And almost convincing until one thinks about it for more than a second.
Can't seem to understand the point can you JuliaM, if you have no valid argument just keep whittering on about how useless everyone else is except you.
My granmother always said the best form of defence is attack...you have absolutely no answer to the impeccable logic of domination of one person over another which has been explained by others so you take a pettyfogging point and try to justify yourself. Get off this blog and back to your hole.At least others demonstrate and open and enquiring mind. You clearly are too stupid to have any empathy or understanding of the human condition.
"Can't seem to understand the point can you JuliaM, if you have no valid argument just keep whittering on about how useless everyone else is except you."
I understand it far too well, 'Beryl'. I understand that there are people who make a living out of lobbying for more help, legislation and taxpayers money for chosen 'victim groups' according to ideology and that has real consequences.
Such as the consequence detailed here, where everyone involved is aware they are wasting their time, yet they still have to go through the (costly) motions.
"..you have absolutely no answer to the impeccable logic of domination of one person over another .."
The only power others have over us is that which we grant them. If you want help, you need to do something about it. If not, stop expecting others to do all the hard work for you.
"At least others demonstrate and open and enquiring mind."
As outlined above, that is the polar opposite of what was described. Slavery to 'the system', once set in motion, even though the outcome was predictable.
Still, never mind. It's only money, eh..?
JuliaM, I am interested to know what you suggest is a practical solution to the problem in hand?
When a complainant in a domestic violence case either :
(i) withdraws their complaint fully,
or, as is more common
(ii) says that whilst their complaint is true, they don't want to see their partner tried
What should we do?
"I am interested to know what you suggest is a practical solution to the problem in hand?"
I understand in some US states, the alleged victim isn't required to press charges - the state does it as a matter of course.
That would seem to be one way forward that would satisfy the bleeding hearts who wail that 'Somebody must do something!' and has the added benefit of at least ensuring that the police don't feel like they wasted their time.
Alternatively, just drop the case if she (or he, as it may be) won't go through with it. Their bed, they made it, let them lie in it.
I’ve only glanced at this blog once or twice but this debate is interesting.
I am a ten year response cop (blues and twos to (some) pub fights, Road Traffic Accidents, domestics, people who kick dogs and Wayne texting Courtney but not to most calls ‘cos they are mostly crap).
The overwhelming majority of “domestics” are utter crap between two low life morons who cannot run their own state funded lives. For example:
“That slag wants to watch Eastenders and I want to watch the football. I paid more for the telly so I want her nicked”
“It’s his turn to do the dishes I did them last night. He’s broken our agreement so I want him arrested”
“My lawyer wrote him a letter telling him not to swear at me but he did so I want him nicked”
It goes on and on and on. They are invariably drunk regardless of the time of day.
Even when an offence has actually occurred there rarely be any independent witnesses and even then they are usually drunk too.
The victim’s themselves are also frequently (over 80% of cases) plastered to the extent that they don’t really know exactly what happened themselves. Getting even a basic pocket book account (not yet a statement) can be well nigh impossible.
Frequently the only reliable evidence will be the attending officers observations.
It used to be the case that the police would take the more antagonistic party away and hold them until they were sober and rejoined the human race (to prevent a breach of the peace). If the “victim” wished to peruse any allegations this could be done when they were sober enough to tell us what had happened.
If the attending officers thought they could get the job home at court then they would try to do so. It was their decision to make.
Micro management from the centre and loss of individual officer’s discretion results in many cases which go nowhere or where poor choices are made or pursued as “policy”. The attending officers would probably have known in this case that action was pointless.
Obviously this would not have applied when serious offences were apparent or suspected when officers would take action regardless.
Applying discretion used to be a police officers stock in trade. It has been replaced by policy.
JuliaM - you understand correctly.
It's no different here in England & Wales. It's a common misconception that the Police/CPS require the 'victim' (I prefer 'complainant') to initiate proceedings. Once they have given a statement, it is out of the complainants hands.
If they won't go through with it, then the case does get dropped.
The term withdrawal statement is, I'm afraid, utterly misleading. I am yet to see one that says 'it didn't happen'. What is more likely, is that it will say 'I love him, I don't want him to go to prison for what he did'. Not a withdrawal at all, merely confirmation of the allegation followed by his/her view on sentence.
The CPS, quite reasonably, asks for a summons to be issued. In most cases, the person receives a summons, comes to court and usually, the defendant pleads guilty. If not, the complaiant usually gives evidence at trial.
Of course if the complainant refuses to attend or does so and refuses to give evidence, the Crown can make a hearsay application to read their evidence - subject to a number of qualifying hurdles.
Sure, if the complainant makes a full withdrawal statement, it's probably a waste of money pursuing it further, but in most cases they don't make that sort of statement as outlined above.
It's not so black and white, but many shades of grey.
I see the problems with DV cases cross the jurisdictional divide then. The PF up here has a similar policy on DV to the CPS - zero tolerance. I saw how this policy works in reality on a recent work shadowing day with one of the Fiscal Deputes. Although, I am of the opinion that the cases where the zero tolerance policy does help are enough to justify any unintended consequences. For too long the CJ system was failing victims of DV (regardless of their gender).
Well....you know me by now.One thing I do is train the Magistrates in my area around the subject of Domestic Abuse.
I'm late to the debate but you'll know my views from past posts.
Men and Women treat each other badly sometimes. I do all I can to promote harmony between couples. Straight, Lesbian or Gay.
I get fed-up with people posturing their views, either in collusion or in blame of Domestic Abuse. This is happening on here today.
Such talk obscures the simple statistic that two women a week are killed in this country by their intimate male partners.
Doing all we can to stop this is the way forward as our Bystander points out.
JVIP
See attached for the way the Crown Court around here deals with refusal to testify.
"I get fed-up with people posturing their views, either in collusion or in blame of Domestic Abuse. This is happening on here today."
Translation: 'Such a horrible thing, the Internet. It's allowed those dreadful other people to express their views, which sometimes don't fall into line with mine!' *shudder*
"Such talk obscures the simple statistic that two women a week are killed in this country by their intimate male partners."
Suddenly..? Out of the blue...?
Or after weeks or months of abuse, where they refuse to leave/claim 'I wuv him!'/think he'll change...?
If these people won't take the chances offered to take charge of their own lives, why should anyone else do the heavy lifting?
Because that's the way society works?
Because it's the duty of the sorted and the strong to help the confused and the weak?
A controversial view, I know.
What frightens me in this blog and many of the responses is the implicit belief that this husband is guilty.
There is an overriding mantra promoted by the govt and special interest groups funded in the multi-millions by this govt that many men are brutal wife beaters and many women are shy, scared victims.
When the facts and research show that men and women are just as likely as each other to be the victims of Domestic Violence. That in fact most DV is mutual.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf
Title: Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey
The BCS estimates that 13% of women and 9% of men had been subject to domestic violence (abuse, threats or force), sexual victimisation or stalking in the twelve months prior to interview.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/
t...ticle587546.ece
'Of 24,000 partners who suffered serious wounding with a weapon, 11,000 were men.'
In other words, 45.8% were men, and 54.2% were women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
5092100.stm
60% (women) said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
6169001.stm
Many male victims fear they will not be taken seriously
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds...dfs/
hors170.pdf
Home Office research: Understanding the sentencing of women
"A superficial examination of the criminal statistics suggests that, for virtually every type of offence, women are treated more leniently than men. "
" Conclusion. This study reveals major differences in the use of noncustodial penalties for men and women. Women were consistently more likely than men to be discharged even when their circumstances appeared, on the basis of the available data, entirely comparable. "
"Because it's the duty of the sorted and the strong to help the confused and the weak?"
They have helped. They've sent a policeman to arrest the assaulter, and a CPS worker to prosecute him, and a magistrate to punish him.
If this stupid woman decides NOT to help them help her, why should anyone do more...?
"There is an overriding mantra promoted by the govt and special interest groups funded in the multi-millions by this govt that many men are brutal wife beaters and many women are shy, scared victims."
Of course. That's why we have, as seen above, commenters like 'Not Long Now' and 'JVIP' singing the party line on 'domestic violence' as soon as anyone tries to ask questions about the total waste of taxpayers money on this case.
JuliaM - One must consider the psychological effects of Domestic Abuse on the victim. Often, the victim is so controlled by their abuser that they cannot give evidence in court for what ever reason. Physical abuse is almost always coupled with emotional abuse as well - and those two together provide such a strong force that leads them to the situation they are in. We, as a decent society, should be providing all the help and support that these individuals need to break free of the grip of their abuser.
"What frightens me in this blog and many of the responses is the implicit belief that this husband is guilty." That's not how I've read the posts, JB: I think the salient point is that what actually happened has not been tested in a court of law. If he didn't commit assault he would be found not guilty, if he did, punishment would follow.
Bystander - Looking at some of the postings on this thread and another recent one, I wonder if we have a troll on board? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%
29)
"We, as a decent society, should be providing all the help and support that these individuals need to break free of the grip of their abuser."
And as I've pointed out, society has done that with the arrest, prosecution and potential punishment. But if he or she won't help themselves by taking advantage of that, there is little anyone can do.
Though proceeding with the case regardless does offer a small crumb of comfort to the 'Kevsters' who have to deal with these people, I'm not sure that the cost to the taxpayer isn't the most relevant factor here.
"Bystander - Looking at some of the postings on this thread and another recent one, I wonder if we have a troll on board?"
Did you actually read the Wiki entry, or did you just assume 'troll' = 'person who doesn't agree with me'....?
It's a common error made by people who are unaccustomed to hearing anything other than agreement from like-minded people and/or subordinates in the work or social circles they frequent.
Blogging really isn't for them, I fear.
Oliver - You have clearly been indoctrinated by the DV lobby in your thought process. In a very tiny number of cases you and they may be correct. However, in the vast majority of cases that ever reach the Courts it is outweighed overwhelmingly by the actual fear of going through the process and perhaps facing sanctions because they were false allegations in the first place.
It is good to see that the £80+ million spent every year by this govt on the DV lobby has not been wasted in your case.
West Country JP - Let's be honest here, the blog and many of the responses to the case reported are concerned that this husband has got away with it, that the alleged victim was somehow let down.
The alleged perpetrator has got away with it even though the trial has not gone ahead and the alleged victim did not wish to proceed. The assumption by the great and good is that she was somehow 'got at', when it is far more plausible that she realised that the false or exaggerated allegations had taken her as far as she could go without legal consequence or that she realised she had taught him enough of a lesson etc
None of us can be sure of what happened but perhaps it is pause for thought time and not just time to jump on the lazy stereotype bandwagon.
Yes, the Wiki entry was made advisedly and after reading it.
I have no issue with people who don't agree with me (or, in the case of others on this and recent threads, expressing opinions I have). But I do have a problem where a poster will not acknowledge the strength of any part of others' arguments, particularly where that poster appears to hold unnecessarily hard-hearted (this thread) or soft-headed ("More from the Inbox" thread) views.
I have not been indoctrinated by any DV lobby. My opinions are developed from my experiences talkig to victims of DV and also witnessing a member of my family being abused by their partner while I was a child.
"...I do have a problem where a poster will not acknowledge the strength of any part of others' arguments..."
I see. You feel your points are so blindingly obviously correct that anyone not immediately ceding the floor, bowing ingratiatingly for having failed to realise their error, is 'not acknowledging your point'.
Did you ever wonder if, perhaps, your point had no value...?
"...particularly where that poster appears to hold unnecessarily hard-hearted (this thread) or soft-headed ("More from the Inbox" thread) views."
Oh, god forbid anyone have 'unnecessarily hard hearted views'...!
Are you really a JP?
That scares me, but doesn't surprise me....
(Julia - Vigorous debate is great, but let's not let it get personal. This is a well mannered blog. - ed )
Edited By Siteowner
I suspect the poor woman was terrified out of her wits - a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont. This is not a clear cut situation to be in and I suspect she was being pressurised from all sides. I just hope she does not live to regret her decision not to give evidence if her husband was guilty. Was there anyone in court supporting her as in individual?
"I suspect the poor woman was terrified out of her wits .."
I suspect the woman simply sobered up, decided it was all a misunderstanding, and felt she could drop it until next time.
Since she declined to proceed, we'll never know who was right, will we...?
As you say, until the next time.
LincsJP - Your comment sums up all that is wrong with this blog and many of the responses to it. Also what is wrong in the system and many of the people within.
Total indoctrination and sexist thinking that condemns the man merely on his gender and automatically without any thought provides sympathy to the woman.
This despite the overwhelming research that shows that domestic violence is mostly mutual and men are just as likely as women to be victims.
It is such an easy out for you to unthinkingly and lazily follow the sexist stereotypes that are funded massively by this govt.
This despite the overwhelming research that shows that domestic violence is mostly mutual and men are just as likely as women to be victims.
[for the benefit of viewers, this is true if you count common assault, which includes shouting and spitting; it is emphatically untrue for ABH, GBH and murder, which are probably what those of use who aren't deranged Men's Rights loonies are worried about]
JB - I said - "if the husband was guilty." I did not assume he was. However, the odds are that the incident will happen again whoever is the victim. From personal experience I am aware of pressures put on the victim to forgive and forget or push incidents under the carpet ususally because it is shameful to the family. This doesnt solve the original problem and can easily lead to a repeat incident.
The only power others have over us is that which we grant them.
Sorry, but no. We (the U.S.) have nuclear missiles aimed at the city where you live, and if you don't do what we like, we'll fire them. We have power over you whether you grant it or not.
And if you are going to call English JPs by an American title, learn to spell the American language correctly.
John B - Not true according to reputable figs from the Home Office etc
Men are nearly as likely to be the victims of ABH, GBH perpetrated by women partners.
It is true however, that it is around 30 men a year killed by their female partners, compared to around 120 women killed by partners. These are tragic incidents but in reality a very tiny number relative to the hundreds of thousands of incidents that happen in equal numbers or so between men and women perpetrators.
Don't forget according to Home Office figures, male victims are 5 times less likely than females to report incidents, including serious incident.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf
Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey
The BCS estimates that 13% of women and 9% of men had been subject to domestic violence (abuse, threats or force), sexual victimisation or stalking in the twelve months prior to interview.
46% of women sustained a minor physical injury, 20% a moderate physical injury, and 6% severe injuries,
Among men, 41% sustained a minor physical injury, 14% a moderate physical injury, 1% severe injuries
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/
t...ticle587546.ece
'Of 24,000 partners who suffered serious wounding with a weapon, 11,000 were men.'
In other words, 45.8% were men, and 54.2% were women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
5092100.stm
60% (women) said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
6169001.stm
Many male victims fear they will not be taken seriously
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds...dfs/
hors170.pdf
Home Office research: Understanding the sentencing of women
"A superficial examination of the criminal statistics suggests that, for virtually every type of offence, women are treated more leniently than men. "
" Conclusion. This study reveals major differences in the use of noncustodial penalties for men and women. Women were consistently more likely than men to be discharged even when their circumstances appeared, on the basis of the available data, entirely comparable. "
A total of 8% (women) admitted injuring them - the highest rate in the study.
The injured men suffered bruises, cuts or broken bones.
Among European students, only English women were more likely to have carried out assaults, with 41% admitting that they had punched or kicked their partners.
We need make the same 'big deal' about violence by women as we do about men who behave violently
However those inflicting injury was less than in Scotland, at 5%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
5092100.stm
I'm a male victim of domestic violence.
:(
And it really stinks because nobody will believe me because they think it is not possible. I'm not saying she is physically capable of actually defeating me in a fight. That is not at all what it's about. But I am stronger than her and I am male. And that is a problem. If I defend myself she is going to get hurt, she tells the police I beat her, and off to the slammer I go. Sure, try to leave the situation. She blocks the exit. Go for the other exit, she grabs on. What a psycho. If I do anything except be her submissive little man and take her wailing she threatens to call the police. And of course when the police arrive she is a sobbing mess with red marks on her from where I struggled to get her off me. What a mess.
Fortunately I was able to escape that relationship with little more than pride damaged. I almost had a similar situation once before. I think the problem is that some of us (both men and women) just don't know how or aren't able to leave a relationship and we are bad judges of character.
Fortunately, I learned a lot from my experience.
Now I'm married to a much more reasonable little angel, we very rarely quarrel, and life is good. And yes, she would honestly tell you the same.
Oddly enough, she is of a different ethnicity than me. And I find her so much more agreeable than my own ethnicity. That is one of the reasons I married her. And one of the reasons she married me is that she is of the opinion that my culture is far less likely to beat her than her own. Our previous experiences drove us to each other. Fate, I suppose.
I have a feeling that women abusing men isn't as rare as we think. But police clearly aren't aware of it and I'm not sure they can be expected to be able to distinguish since it's just his word against hers. Police are terrible for sorting out complicated family situations and the only tool at their disposal is to arrest someone.
My predicament has changed my whole outlook on domestic violence and the evil of one woman has seriously affected my sympathy for those women who are abused because I can't help but think that some perhaps small percentage of them are liars. It happened to me. It is not impossible.
This is interesting to read about how other countries handles these cases.
Here in Houston, Texas USA, we expect our victims to recant. Our prosecutors can introduce evidence that can prove the case, even if our victim later recants.
Afterall, asking her if she wants to prosecute is just like asking the defedant...if she's been in this type of relationship for long, she's learned that to go against him is to ask for another beating.
Once he's charged, it is between him and us now.
only 1 SDVC out of the lot will support male victims.... shows how much HMG actually read the stats they produce.
JB, nice work on the stats. Have you checked the Scottish Government figures yet? They say the same thing.
Joe Average, your story sounds so like what I went through. There is a helpline that does support male victims of DV, Mens Aid is on 087 1223 9986
and provided I bystander doesn't mind, DVIRP in leicestershire on 0116 255 0004 also supports ANY victim of Domestic Violence.
Joe - I have the same story as you but how can I leave ? What about my children ?
Commenting by HaloScan
