Overview of Domestic Violence in the UK

Overview of internal Violence in the UKDomestic r maturate is very real and common in the UK, and indeed internation tout ensembleyIn the UK municipal force accounts for a quarter of all crime, dis adore these figures it is recorded that only 5 per cent of recorded cases of house servant forcefulness end in credendum, less(prenominal) than 20 per cent of rapes and sexual trespasss argon reported to the practice of law, and less than 6 per cent of rapes result in conviction. surface points out as a comparison, the number of women that be in prison, and the manifestly trivial reasons for in that location incarceration.There be now over 4,500 women in prison, an increase of 194 per cent in the cobblers last ten years. Most women atomic number 18 convicted of non- vehement criminal offences, such as shoplifting. One woman out of 12 resolve in the House of Lords, 5 women out of 43 patrol psyche Constables, 18 women out of 42 Chief office staffrs of Probation, 7 women out of 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors, 31 women out of 138 Prison Governors. There was endorse of sexual agony and discrimination experienced by women working in the system.Domestic force is non discriminatory and occurs between people of all social classes, amongst all racial and religious groupings and in all age groups. Crime and other statistics potbelly only provide us with a taster of the real visit. The nature and extent of the suffering which is endured by families tooshie closed doors is very very often roughlything that is kept private. Victims of house servantated assaults often do not complain of delirium, all through cultism of being set ahead assaulted, or because they ar too embarrassed and ashamed to reveal their predicament to professionals who might be able to assist them. Although the traditional perspective is that victims of home(prenominal) violence be predominately women, this is not always the case, men, children and the elderly are undefend able to domestic violence too. This said on that point is an abundance of evidence to verbalise that it is women and children who are the main victims. Children who themselves suffer violence at the hands of a parent are in the main protected by the bring up though child protection procedures. The remedies provided by the civil impartiality are therefore generally used to obtain protection for an adult victim.As Subedi points out There are several causes of violence against women. These range from diachronic unequal power relations between men and women to cultural perceptions, womens sexuality, inertia on the part of the agents of the State to the traditional perception in law and practice that bes within the family and between a husband and wife are basically private matters in which outside or State conflict should be kept to a minimum. Unlike other chassiss of crime, the problem with domestic violence has been that even the law itself is not sound- developed and the la w that is there on this issue has not been enforced as vigorously as possible. It is from this premise that efforts suck been do in the recent past twain at discipline and internationalistic level to strengthen the law on traditional patterns of violence and to expand the scope of the law to cover vernal forms of violence. While the problem often encountered in this operation at national level is the doctrine of privacy and the concept of the sanctity of the family, the dichotomy of the humans/private sphere is the problem at international level.In the UK, domestic assaults are criminal offences and a man who endeavors his wife can be prosecuted for his actions. He whitethorn be charged with one or much than of various offences against the somewhatwhatbody included the offence of rape. The Protection From Harassment portrayal 1997 introduced strong measures to assist those who are victims of a course of subscribe to, which amounts to badgering and make such conduct a crime. However, victims of domestic violence and harassment may be reluctant to become involved in the pursuance process for a number of reasons. These include the realisation by the victim that the matter is no longer infra her control once she has reported an attack to the legal philosophy. It will be up to the police to decide whether and how they wish to go over her complaint, and it will be the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service whether or not to go ahead and press charges.This loss of control acts as a disincentive to women to report incidents of violence, as they may well fear the consequences of their action if the police and Crown Prosecution Service fail, as they actualise it, to respond in an book fashion. In the past the police have been unwilling to intervene in cases of domestic violence, and to prosecute offenders. This perception of the police as unwilling to come to the assistance of victims of domestic assaults is still perspicuous today, even though domestic violence is taken much more seriously by the police than in the past, and even though police practices in many areas have changed radically in favour of the victim.Figures from British Crime Surveys suggest that domestic violence forms the largest single category of violent crime. In a survey carried out by Davis and Gretny revea lead that of a revolve around of 448 assaults, all of which were referred to the CPS, there were 243 (54 per cent) non-domestics and 205 (46 per cent) domestics. If the British Crime Survey finding that domestic violence comprises 20 per cent of all assaults can be believed, and if the Bristol police files that they surveyed can be taken to be representative of the current position, it would advance that domestic assault is significantly more likely to be prosecuted than is assault in other contexts. This is remarkable given the widely accepted picture of domestic violence as a crime some(prenominal) low(a)-reported and under-recorded.In such situations a victim of domestic violence, may return for an engagement under the Davis G Cretney A, (1996) Prosecuting Domestic Assault, Criminal rightfulness Review cocker 162 174 or a non- molestation locate under s42 of the Family Law crop 1996. The statutes have somewhat differing aims although twain(prenominal) statutes do aim to interdict harassment and can be compared and this will be discussed. Only associated soulfulnesss can apply under the FLA 1996 anybody can apply under the PHA 1997. There are wider remedies addressable under the FLA 1996, including the power to repair occupation orders. Damages can be awarded only under the PHA 1997. This is an important point. Domestic violence/harassment knows no social boundaries and therefore an award of damages can be a salutory lesson. It can also be an important remedy for those who are terrified to report, for fear of financial hardship. Such damages can, of course, if not promptly paid, be enforced in all the usual ways including execution, join onment of recompense or a charging order on land if necessary followed by an order for sale. Presently, a power of as accredited can be committed to FLA 1996 orders but not to PHA 1997 orders.However, although the power of arrest is retained for occupation orders it is to be abolished for non-molestation orders. A warrant of arrest can be issued under any statute. Breach of an injunction under s 3 of the PHA 1997 is an offence pause of a non-molestation order is made an offence by s 42A of the FLA 1996.(7) rule judges have full jurisdiction under both statutes to make orders, issue warrants and deal with contempt of judicial system proceeding for scandalize of orders. Applications under the FLA 1996 are family proceedings governed by the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 and must be issued in a family proceedings court, a divorce county court, family hearing centre, care centre or in the Principal Registry or Lambeth Shoreditch or Woolwich Co unty Courts.Applications under the PHA 1997 are civil proceedings governed by CPR 1998 Part 65 and can be issued in the High Court (Queens Bench Division) or in the county court for the district in which either the claimant or the defendant resides or carries on business.Exceptionally, concurrent proceedings under both statutes are appropriate. They should be consolidated and tried together. A person arrested and brought before the court pursuant to the FLA 1996 can be remanded in custody or on bail. There is no power to remand a person arrested and brought before the court pursuant to the PHA 1997. Punishment for contempt of court under either statute is subject to the maximum of 2 years imprisonment provided by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The sentence must be relative to the seriousness of the contempt. Conviction for breach of an injunction under s 3 of the PHA 1997 or for breach of a non-molestation order under s 42A of the FLA 1996 both carry a maximum sentence of 6 mont hs and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum on outline conviction, and a maximum sentence of 5 years and/or fine on conviction on indictment. Both statutes provide that a person cannot be both punished for contempt of court and prosecuted in respect of the same(p) incident. The PHA 1997 also creates offences (ss 2 and 4) not dependant on a civil injunction the FLA 1996 does not.By s 1 of the PHA 1997, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another. By s 7(3) a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions and by s 7(4) conduct includes speech. Section 7(3A) was inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and provides A persons conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is) and (b) to be conduct in relation to which the others knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the clip of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.The phrase course of conduct has caused roughy. In R v Hills held that assaults in April and October 1999 were not a course of conduct, particularly since the parties had been reconcile in the interim. In Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions quashed a conviction on the grounds that two incidents 4 months apart were not a course of conduct. The fewer the number of incidents and the wider the time lapse between them, the less likely that they give rise to a course of conduct. On appropriate accompaniments, a charge of assault should be preferred. Indeed, many cases justify both a charge of assault and of harassment.The definition of harassment (and assault) is the same in civil and criminal proceedings, and thus arguments on whether or not the re was a course of conduct can arise in both civil and criminal courts. In civil cases, where they may be doubtfulness on whether there is a course of conduct then, as in crime, where appropriate, assault can also be alleged.In June 2003 the Home Office published a consultation paper setting out proposals to articulated lorry domestic violence. The paper indicated the Governments strategy was based on three elements to prevent domestic violence occurring or recurring to increase support for victims and to verify improved legal protection and justice for domestic violence victims. This led to the enactment of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 which came into force in inch 2005.DVCVA 2004 closely links the civil and criminal processes through bare-ass police powers, and through a new criminal offence of breach of a non-molestation order. It also creates a new offence of causing or permitting the wipeout of a child or vulnerable person. It also requires the call forion of a code of practice and a victims fund, to be financed by surcharges on fines and some fixed penalties. It creates the power for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to recover currency from offenders, and makes a variety of other changes to criminal procedure, powers and sentencing.Non-molestation or occupation orders are key tools in providing protection for those who fall within the category of associated persons. anterior to the enactment of the DVCVA 2004 eligibility raceed to those living together as man and wife (cohabitants), or former cohabitants, and those who live or have lived in the same household (except if they are employees, tenants or boarders, or a lodger). DVCVA 2004 extends the category of associated person to include cohabitants in a same-sex relationship living in an same relationship to that of husband and wife.The power to attach a power of arrest to a non-molestation order is removed by this act. Instead, common assault becomes an arrest able offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and breach of a non-molestation order becomes a criminal (arrestable) offence.If, for whatever reason, no prosecution is mounted, maybe because of the wishes of the victim, that does not prevent an application to the civil court to commit for breach of the order. Nothing prevents the commencement of civil proceedings while criminal proceedings are pending, following arrest, though arguably a family court should hold back the determination of the criminal process.A new criminal offence is created under s42A will be punishable on conviction on indictment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding quintuple years, or a fine, or both, and on summary conviction by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum, or both. The prosecution will need to prove the existence and terms of the order the fact that the defendant was aware of the order conduct that amounts to breach of that or der, provided the breach is applicable only to sentence and not to guilt or innocence and the lack of reasonable excuse.Minor changes are made to occupation orders under the DVCVA 2004 these require a court, in proceedings for an occupation order, to consider whether or not to make a non-molestation order. Other changes include changes to reflect cohabitation as distant to marriage. Nothing in the new Act removes the right of the court to attach a power of arrest to an occupation order. This may cause some difficulties where a court makes both a non-molestation order and an occupation order, particularly if a court has attached a radius clause, for example not to come within a specified distance of the applicants home.Restraining orders under PHA 1997 form an integral part of the machinery for the protection of victims of domestic violence. DVCVA 2004, s 12, will extend the courts power to make a restraining order under s 5 of PHA 1997.Under s 5, when a court is sentencing or oth erwise relations with a person who is convicted of an offence under s 2 or s 4 of that Act, then as well as sentencing him or dealing with him in any other way, it may make a restraining order. The restraining order is particularly useful, as it provides for the continued safety of the victim but can only be made in cases where a conviction had been obtained for a s 2 or s 4 offence.As rise up points outA vignette of current concerns suggests that much has changed in the last few decades. There is a ministerial group on domestic violence headed by Home Office minister, Baroness Scotland. The Solicitor General, a woman, has made tackling domestic violence a policy priority. She has talked to the President of Family Division, a woman. The Law Commission has recommended the abolition of the partial defence of provocation for reasons largely to do with its differential impact on male and female partner killers. The mental trauma associated with rape and other forms of sexual harassme nt has been acknowledged, much tending has been given to improving police practices, and the offences themselves have been reconfigured around the concept of trust. It is difficult to believe that these changes would have come about without the influence of feminism in general and feminist legal commentators in particular. These changes also fit into a much wider pattern in which victims have moved very much centre stage along with the associated restorative justice movement.Internationally moves are being made to improve the situation for women. There have been international efforts to strengthen womens rights. This perception has contributed to the reluctance on the part of many countries to adopt either a protocol to CEDAW providing for individual petition or a protocol on violence against women with similar remedies for women. Moreover, the perception of States towards certain types of violence seems to be different in developed Western countries from that of certain create co untries. While widespread dissemination of pornographic material and use of women as sex objects by the media has been viewed as violence against women by women in certain developing countries, the same does not necessarily hold true in certain Western countries such as the Netherlands and the United States, which opposed the comprehension of this type of violence in the definition of violence in the design UN declaration on violence against women. This type of activity cannot be violence for those women who voluntarily allow themselves to be used as sex objects by the media. But it may be seen as a psychological violence against women in general by those who disapprove of such treatment of women by the media. The protest campaigns organised recently by grass-root womens groups in India against the world viewer competition in Bangalore is an example of such differences of opinion.So is British law sufficient? Does it protect women adequately? There is generally are much greater a wareness of domestic violence, and the criminality and culpability has increased some what over the last decade. Awareness has been heightened, although it can be argued that the piece repast legislation is unacceptable and there needs to be some conjugated up thinking insofar as this area of law is concerned. Whilst the new legislation is a move in that direction, it is a wasted hazard as it is certainly desirable that the law on domestic violence should be consolidated.