| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): Domestic violence used to be a secret crime committed in the night behind closed doors. It was secret not only because he would not talk about it but because of her shame. It was also private—outsiders who knew or guessed would regard it as a hands-off part of the complex of the couple's emotional relationship. The police took the same view: they thought it was just a "domestic", a nuisance which it was beneath them to attend and which took place, often at the same address, many times.
Those attitudes are not now acceptable from him, the police or her. She needs support, but she must speak out. Domestic violence perpetrators are often serial offenders who leave one battered woman's life in disarray and take up with another. She will therefore serve other women badly by keeping a dark secret. According to the lead of the Association of Chief Police Officers on domestic violence, many domestic violence perpetrators commit other crimes, and it is desirable to bring them to police attention. Considerable damage is done to children who witness domestic violence and even suffer it, because there is a close link between domestic violence and child abuse. For all those reasons, and because women are entitled to live in safety from violence, everyone involved must play a role in ensuring that domestic violence is stamped out.
I therefore welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on it. It is by no means the first thing that they have done to tackle domestic violence. The list of non-legislative measures is as long as a book, and they have started to change the culture, not least—and I speak approvingly—of the main Opposition party, who did not keep the issue at the forefront of their mind when in government, but have today made some positive proposals. The Bill, however, could be improved. It deals mainly with court proceedings, but few cases are complained about, and fewer reach court. Forty-two per cent. of complainants withdraw their complaint, and the conviction rate is 11 per cent., so there is a need for pre-trial action.
Consider a typical domestic violence complainant in, for instance, Redcar. Redcar and Cleveland women's aid does a fine job on a fine, or thin, budget. Usually in the household, the abuser has the money and, as a rule, is the tenant or owner of the house. He helps with the children, or perhaps his mother helps, so that the woman can go out to work. What will she do for money if she gets rid of him but cannot work? He will have to leave—or worse, she will have to leave, and perhaps go to a refuge. What then? She has never had a tenancy, the children will lose their father, they will be poorer financially, emotionally impoverished and the home will break up. People who regard him as a nice guy are bound to think that it is something that she does that makes him want to beat her up. Can she not just put up with the odd thump, as it has not killed her yet? If, despite all that, the woman makes a complaint, it is imperative that the public authorities pursue it with vigour, yet the joint inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, in a report on domestic violence only a few months ago, made it clear that the police response is patchy and that the CPS interest in those files is sometimes thin. The complainant will not have the personal power to drive the agencies on.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 598
We should remember that the complainant will have been abused about 35 times before she makes a complaint and her self-esteem will have been undermined. It is essential to provide a domestic violence advocacy service to support complainants, overturn the system's lack of enthusiasm and drive the agencies forward. An advocacy system is already operated by specialists at the Redcar and Cleveland branch of Victim Support. Advocates can negotiate on housing—a frequently needed skill, because all too often it is the woman, not the man, who leaves. Alternatively, if she stays, the advocate will help to develop a safety plan, such as changing the locks, arranging for a panic alarm or CCTV—whatever it takes. Advocates can manage benefit entitlements, which change when families break down, and can help to arrange child care and, if necessary, change the child's school. They can make referrals to counselling services, help with the civil courts, and drive on the criminal case. As other Members have said, they are a cheap but important link. Existing UK schemes have shown significant reductions in repeat victimisation, and benefits for the process of family healing after the event. I commend such schemes to the Government, and urge them to consider including provision for one in the Bill.
I shall say no more about women with no recourse to public funds, save to agree that it is a major issue. I shall say no more about contact for domestic violence perpetrators with children, which is an extremely serious issue. I shall say no more about the need for a definition, save that the police and CPS inspectorate pointed out that those two organisations have different definitions of domestic violence. If it is to be monitored properly, there is a need for one. I shall say no more about familial homicide, provisions on which I supported throughout the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
I shall spend the few remaining minutes on the statistic that two women a week are killed by violent partners, and 30 men a year by their battered partners. Many men and women run the defence of provocation. It cuts the conviction from murder to manslaughter, so the sentence is not mandatory life—it becomes discretionary. The Government are undecided whether to change the law on provocation. They should.
In domestic killings, men kill because of anger or sexual jealousy; women usually because of abuse. Provocation means what it says, although in law it is a little more technical than that. Provocation is killing in a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by provocation, under which a reasonable person might have reacted in the same way. The point of it is that although the defendant kills and goes too far, his culpability is mitigated by the provocative conduct of the victim.
Originally, that had to be wrongful conduct by the victim, because that is the philosophy behind it, as I have just set out, and it would have turned that philosophy on its head to apply the doctrine in circumstances where the victim had a right or was not wrong to behave as they did. However, there have been cases in which women have been killed and men have said they were provoked to lose their self-control by "nagging". For one man, the final provocation was the way the woman moved the mustard pot across the table. In a case in Leeds, the Crown accepted a plea from a man to provocation
14 Jun 2004 : Column 599
manslaughter when he had killed his wife after she merely told him she was going to leave to go to another man.
We must remember that the behaviour is supposed to be that of a reasonable person, but one might think that it is not. A House of Lords case called Smith four years ago stated that when considering whether a reasonable person might have reacted to the provocation in the same way, all the characteristics of the defendant must be taken into account, including anything that might lower his level of self-control. So the defendant's characteristics are put into the reasonable person, who becomes the defendant, and the question whether a reasonable person might have reacted as the defendant did is completely meaningless. In addition, this defence blames the victim who, in those cases and many others, is entirely blameless, and it causes extra anguish and a sense of injustice to the grieving family.
The typical killing by a battered woman is not from anger and does not fit the sudden and temporary loss of self-control model. Eighty per cent. of such killings take place while the woman is under attack. She runs into the kitchen and turns and stabs the man once with a knife when he is coming for her. There is no defence of killing out of fear or despair that accommodates battered woman in the way that killing out of anger—provocation—accommodates men. However, there is no less emotional or psychological stress if somebody kills after long tolerance of harsh treatment, in desperation, rather than suddenly, in provoked anger.
One might think that that run into the kitchen and the turn-round under attack is self-defence, but it is excessive. To be a defence, self-defence must be proportionate. If a woman is attacked, perhaps only with fists or boots, even though the man is stronger and has used violence before, if she takes a weapon and lashes out a jury will not acquit on self-defence. Excessive or disproportionate self-defence leads to a conviction for murder, not for manslaughter.
Women are defended on two bases—first, that the act was proportionate self-defence, and secondly—if that fails—that it was provocation. However, proportionality in self-defence requires some measurement; some deliberation. Provocation—that is, the attack by the man—requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control and a lashing out. The two are quite inconsistent. Women do not kill out of anger. Both defences often fail—hence, violent men get away with murder and battered women are convicted of it. The need for a reform of the law is urgent. The Law Commission has made excellent proposals, which I ask the Government to accept. I intend to propose an amendment.
Just before 1 April, clause 12, which attacks trial by jury, went through the Lords. Last year there were Government plans to scrap trial by jury. In November, the Government dropped proposals that would have allowed defendants to choose trial by judge alone. Critics, myself included, argued that that would soon become no choice at all. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows judge-alone trials in cases of jury intimidation, but no restriction on jury trial in serious fraud cases will be implemented without a further vote.
Under the new proposals, the process starts with an appeal when a man has been charged on four specimen counts of 17 allegations. The Lord Chief Justice said
14 Jun 2004 : Column 600
that he cannot be sentenced for the 17, although they are identical to the four, because they have been neither admitted nor proved—he can be sentenced only for the four and will have to be tried on every count. The Lord Chief Justice said that that need not be unduly burdensome or unmanageable. The Law Commission, on the other hand, said that it was an intractable problem in cases involving hundreds of charges. The Government accepted that and proposed a two-stage trial procedure. The first stage takes place before a judge and jury in the normal way, with specimen counts; then, in the event of a guilty verdict, there is a second stage in which the defendant is tried by a judge alone on any charge that was linked to the specimen counts. It is thought that many will plead guilty at that stage.
Many, including the Bar Council, see the abolition of jury trials as the thin end of the wedge. I confess that I share some of those fears. I see no difficulty in having a second—or, indeed, a third—trial heard by a jury. If the counts are specimens, the relevant evidence will be admissible in the second stage anyway; and if the person has been found guilty, which is admissible under the 2003 Act, it seems pretty likely that there will be guilty pleas on many of them.
However, my main concern relates to what I readily accept are unintended consequences. If a two-tier system of trial becomes law, people will soon be singing the praises of trial by judge alone. There is no doubt that trial by a judge is speedier and cheaper than a full-blown jury trial. People will ask, "Why do we need 10 of these counts to be tried by a jury if the other 190 are being tried by a judge? Let's do them all under a judge." Once again, it will be the beginning of the end for juries.
This is a good Bill, and given the good will that we have seen here tonight it can be better. However, clause 12 is a bad clause that is unconnected with domestic violence or its victims. I hope that the Government will think again on that, but I sincerely congratulate them on the rest of the Bill.
8.57 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |