Domestic violence is a descriptive term; it is not
a crime. Domestic abuse is a descriptive
term; it is not a crime. Common Assault
is a crime. There are clearly cogent arguments that actions which constitute the
former description could be clarified in
legislation. It would not be unreasonable
for parliament to take such an approach.
The current position of defining assault in a domestic context leaves
loose ends. One person`s domestic context is not necessarily another`s. I remember
many years ago sitting on a bench
which was advised that assault involving two “distant” brothers-in-law sharing with their families a
very large house was to be considered a “domestic”. I disagreed in principle and my opinion was reflected in our sentencing of
the guilty defendant.
My colleagues, and I suspect, most lawyers are well
aware of the problems when such cases are often “s/he did”: “no I didn`t.” Often photographs taken by the officers
called to the scene are instrumental in a bench`s conclusion of guilt. With proposals from Theresa May that emotional
abuse could be construed as domestic violence the law IMHO is going where it
has no right of way. Couples within an intimate relationship which was the originally defined situation and which excludes
many existing “domestic” relationships eg parent/child, sibling/sibling etc etc are always subject to emotional variations; it
is the human condition. To legislate
name calling as an offence means that a tribunal of J.P.s or a District Judge(MC)
must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that harm has been caused by a defendant
to a complainant. In the normal context
of harm this will be almost impossible.
Of course proponents of such proposals will retort that controlling or
insulting behaviour can cause mental health problems of one kind or
another. That indeed might be true in some cases but
can such trauma be shown in a court of law to have reached the threshold
whereby a finding of guilt can be made?
I would posit that such legislation would inevitably be subject to the
law of unintended consequences and would cause more problems than it would
solve.