Why are domestic abusers still cross-examining their victims in the family court?

Family|Family Law | 26 Jan 2021 2

On the 18th of July, the House of Commons debated the issue of progress on protecting victims of domestic abuse in the family courts. The debate was moved by Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley.

In order to explain what the debate was about, I’m going to quote quite heavily from it, all quotes being from Mrs Phillips’ contribution.

She began by explaining that:

“There is often friction among specialist women’s organisations, the judiciary and lawyers with regard to issues to do with violence against women and girls, and the court system. Often the problem is that we do not all sing from the same hymn sheet. Every single one of the briefings, however, whether from the Magistrates’ Association, the Law Society or one of the specialist organisations makes at least one of three recommendations to Government. I will, therefore, focus on those specific recommendations and ask the Government to do something about them.”

The first recommendation relates to perpetrators being able to cross-examine victims in the family court (I mentioned this here last Friday). Mrs Phillips did not mince her words on this. Without bothering to qualify the word ‘perpetrator’ with the word ‘alleged’, she said:

“The idea that in this country—still, today, right now, in the courts—a perpetrator is cross-examining a victim of domestic abuse, perhaps in order to gain access to their children, is absolutely harrowing.”

She explained of course that:

“…the practice is a direct consequence of the changes to the legal aid regime made by the … Government”

And that:

“As a result, it is now the case that not only perpetrators but—we must not forget this—victims must act as litigants in person.”

Why victims? Isn’t legal aid still available to them? Well, not always.

She explained:

“The Minister will no doubt respond by saying that the Government have made changes to legal aid in civil and family court cases involving domestic abuse, but every single day I am notified of at least one case of domestic abuse victims not being able to access legal aid in the family court.”

And how many victims are subjected to this ‘secondary abuse’ in court?

She had this answer:

“Queen Mary University of London found that 24% of domestic violence victims who had gone through the family court system had been cross-examined by their perpetrator”

Moving on, the second recommendation relates to practice direction 12J and the new practice direction 3AA. As to the former, Mrs Phillips explained that:

“…practice direction 12J basically undoes the idea that someone who has been abusive has a right to see their children.”

Again using robust language, she explained her position thus:

“I wonder whether the Minister [i.e. Justice Minister Lucy Frazer] will join me in stressing the importance of this very simple message: “If you beat, coerce, humiliate and abuse your children’s mother, you waive your right to be their father until the moment the non-abusive parent decides otherwise.”

She qualified this, however, by explaining:

“I am not saying for one second that no one who commits domestic abuse should be able to see their children, but they should not have a right to demand to see them where the non-abusive parent does not wish those children—and the children do not wish—to be put in that situation.”

As to PD3AA, she said:

“New practice direction 3AA requires courts to consider whether those involved in family proceedings are vulnerable and, if so, whether that is likely to diminish their participation in proceedings or … the quality of their evidence.”

She asked:

“What are the Minister and the Department doing to review the use of practice direction 12J following its reaffirmation? It has been around for a long time. Can we conduct some sort of review of whether it is working or whether it needs updating, and of new practice direction 3AA? Both are key to ensuring that we can rebuild trust among victims of domestic abuse.”

Lastly, the third recommendation relates to the issue of special measures for victims of domestic abuse in the family courts, which Mrs Phillips described as “woefully behind those in criminal justice proceedings.”

In some cases, she said:

“…the same woman may present at the same courthouse—literally the same building—and be offered different things. She would most likely be greeted at the door of the criminal court by an independent domestic violence adviser co-located in that courthouse, who would have arranged different times for her and would explain the system and help her find the special area for her in the court. She may then walk around the back of the building and go through a different door into the family court, where someone may say, “Oh, there’s Larry—you can just sit next to him, regardless of the years of abuse you have suffered.”

She has an excellent point, and one that has often been raised (I recall scenarios of the above type when I was practising, and it seems little has changed in the nine years since I last entered a court building).

She went on scathingly:

“There is absolutely no excuse for the tardiness with which we have reacted to something we have known about for a long time. At least since I came to this place, we have been raising the need for separate rooms, separate arrival times and better evidence-giving opportunities, so that people do not just have a curtain around them but can give evidence from elsewhere via video link.”

Quite.

I will leave it there, but there is considerably more in the debate – the above just concentrates upon Mrs Phillips’ opening remarks, setting out the main points of the debate. If you want to read more, you can find the debate here, although I should give a word of warning: as you may have gathered from the above, it is very female-centric, with little mention of the fact that men are also victims of domestic abuse.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. Guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Get in touch

    Request Free Call Back

    We remain open for business during the COVID-19 outbreak. Submit your details below, and we’ll arrange a free, no-obligation call back at a time to suit you. To ensure we are the right fit, we need to make you aware that we cannot offer Legal aid.

    Comments(2)

    1. Dr John Wood says:

      Once again no mention of Parental Alienation which should be recognised as a form of Domestic Abuse. In addition the words used by all involved makes it a gendered crime rather than as Jess Phillips started off using non-gendered terminology such as victim and perpetrator.
      Not all victims of domestic abuse are female!

    2. Bryn says:

      24% face to face victims?
      I wonder how much of that 24% is actually correct and true?
      Be much better to see the % of how meany have lied and manipulated the law system to gain financially and gain contact?
      I think this needs sorting out first as the police law system is broken!!!
      It’s sad to see it happen so often that good parents lose or fail to get access to their child – children after a divorce?
      This in part is a fault in the advice given by organisations and solicitors!!!!
      If the chid-children were not of social services interest, and school are happy with the development, then no matter what BEEF 2 adults have with each other it has nothing to do with the kids!!!
      50% of divorced fathers have faced some mad up allegations or other, dose this not make the law a arse backwards system? Yes it dose your guilty till you cannot prove your innocent!!!
      For the system to be respected it has to have major changes to child care.
      No child is a weapon to harm others!!
      No child shall mis out in contact if contact was 24/7 prior to brake up!!
      Any fabrication or allegations bending the truth shall have consequences in contact and care.
      And the most important of all a 50/50 share care of the children child as a minimum starter off.

      I ask you this? Why should fathers be discriminated against When it comes to child care?
      Women preach moan about equal opportunity and so on!!! But when it comes to children “they are mine” scenario comes to fruit!!!
      Would love to see your view on all of this?
      Ta wa

    Leave a Reply

    Close

    Newsletter Sign Up

    For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
    please sign up for instant access today.



      Privacy Policy