The prosecution of those suspected of
violence against their intimate partners has changed radically in the last two
decades. “Domestics” where no serious
injury occurred often resulted in a warning to the perpetuator to behave
better. Now the pendulum has well and
truly swung the other way. There has
been cross party political pressure to charge
and convict those responsible for such crimes.
Indeed the definition of “domestic” has widened. I have sat on a case where the defendant was
the distant brother in law of the complainant.
Hardly intimate partners but the whole weight of the protocols in place
to prosecute DV cases was employed. In
the event the accused was found not guilty of common assault. I mention this owing to a recent series of DV
matters before my colleagues and me having resulted
in “case dismissed”. The reasons were
complainants failing to appear despite the protocol of there having been a
witness summons issued; withdrawal statements having been made which of course
undermined the CPS case; complainants attending but refusing to give evidence
and those whose evidence consisted of “Can`t remember”. There is always an underlying suspicion that
despite the probable bail condition imposed upon the defendant of “no contact” pressure
in some form or another has been brought to bear upon the complainant. But and it`s a big “but” I believe that
prosecutors are being pressured to pursue such cases with a portfolio of
evidence that is less convincing than would be expected in non DV matters of a
similar gravity. This is based upon this
government`s ceaseless quest to, “put victims and witnesses at the centre of
our reforms”, quoting Chris Grayling.
Indeed today another breathless press release from his minions at Petty
France announces further efforts which appear to
convert our common law to that based upon Sharia. It won`t be long before every offence has a
price that an alleged offender can pay a complainant in order to forestall court
action. With many more defendants on
average earnings being made to represent
themselves owing to their being denied legal aid and victims
and witnesses to be given more support with double the number of “courtroom
experts” soon to be available to help them give evidence, one wonders what more
will be done to raise the conviction rate to a Chinese 99%.
Where is the learned opposition to this
galloping trend? Where is the
Magistrates Association`s opposition.
Does the Bar demonstrate only when legal aid fees are cut? Do the higher judiciary await retirement
before expressing opinion? I have
previously commented on the outspokenness of such people including the
military and police on defence and crime
respectively only when their pensions hit their bank accounts. The result is plain to see with the predicted
budget for defence likely to fall below 2% and senior generals being bullied into silence on criticism of the country`s ability to be defended.
I vote in a marginal constituency currently
held by the Tories where UKIP is breathing down the neck of the incumbent. I am a capitalist by experience and
conviction but it might stick in my craw to put my cross for the party which
has allowed our justice system from arrest to prison to be ravished as it has been over the last
five years.
Hearing Senior Police Officers begging "victims" of sexual abuse to come forward, saying "You will be believed", is another symptom of this trend.
ReplyDelete