WHEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HITS THE BUFFERS

 

05. Feb. 2010. – 11:35:46

"It`s just a domestic". Not so long ago that was the response in many cases when a woman [usually] complained to police of having been assaulted by her husband, boyfriend, partner. It was a scandalous misnomer which covered incidents of varying degrees of violence from being pushed around to broken bones and worse.

Being driven in part by increasing assertion of womens` rights, perceived inequality and the 1997 Labour government`s realisation that the womens` vote was theirs for the persuading, pressure was put upon police to "take no prisoners" when reacting to calls for help from "battered women".

"Domestic Violence"........it exists in the English language but not in law. There is no such offence! The term covers offences within a domestic context; acts of violence or abuse against a person living in one's household, especially a member of one's immediate family. In Magistrates Courts the charges are Common Assault or Assault by Beating and as per the definition can include violence towards any family member by another. It is generally accepted after extensive studies here and abroad that a complaint is made to police only after as many twenty or more such incidents have occurred. Often these offences are committed behind closed doors and the alleged victim is the main or usually only witness. It is therefore common for the alleged perpetrator to intimidate the alleged victims, 90% of whom are female, in order to avoid evidence being given against him. It became the practice a few years ago for the Metropolitan Police to declare that in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service all such cases would be pursued even when the complainant refused to testify. And thus was born the current policy of "Domestic Violence".

But the Crown Prosecution Service also has its own criteria on when to prosecute. In short these are that the matter must be in the public interest, be cost effective and that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. If the complainant for whatever reason withdraws in writing the allegation and makes it known that she will not come to court and even if she were to be forced to come to court will not repeat the original allegations in the witness box the last criterion is in tatters. Although there are legal get outs, particularly hearsay evidence, it is very difficult to convict without the alleged victim`s co-operation. From my personal experience of such matters I have an impression, and it is only an impression, that the CPS is reluctant to withdraw from cases where there is very little likelihood of conviction. That is in direct opposition to its own policy.

Obtaining figures to confirm or refute this impression is very difficult. It is obvious that if it were widely known that a violent man would not be prosecuted if his partner refused to give evidence against him it would increase the likelihood of further intimidation and more serious violence.........the very actions the policy is designed to avoid. What is certain is that some serious consideration must be given to putting this subject on the agenda for thorough overhaul if and when the incoming government enacts legislation for serious purpose as opposed to gesture politics or reacting to current events with the consequent kneejerk reaction that was apparent when The Dangerous Dogs Act was drafted.