Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors
Lord Meston Excerpts(6 days, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence is clearly ambitious. It is perhaps less ambitious than the elimination of domestic violence, referred to in the Motion before us.
Statistics do not suggest either aim to be possible. The World Health Organization reports domestic violence to be the largest cause of morbidity in women aged 19 to 44—more than wars, cancer or motor accidents. Domestic abuse used to be seen as essentially a private problem, except in extreme cases. Changed perceptions and the Human Rights Act have given the state responsibilities for positive, preventive and protective action, now reinforced by the Istanbul convention, signed in 2012 and eventually ratified in 2022. That is a convention based on realities rather than on abstract rights.
Domestic abuse persists and will continue to do so, but having worked in family law for a long time I want to emphasise some significant improvements: first, the changes in terminology that have already been referred to. The 2021 Act provides a wide and useful definition of domestic abuse, including psychological, emotional and economic abuse, and it is not confined to what happens in a home, if there is one. But the word “domestic” remains fundamental, emphasising the need to protect homes as places of security and safety, and not as places of dangerous misery.
The recognition of controlling or coercive behaviour has served to focus the attention of the courts and professionals on patterns of behaviour rather than individual incidents. There is now a much better understanding of the impact on victims, in terms of social and familial isolation and loss of self-esteem, particularly in households and relationships in which violence and abuse have become normalised.
However, many perpetrators of abuse, lacking empathy and insight, all too easily move on to other harmful relationships. The family courts see this time and again. Sadly, Sarah’s law and Clare’s law are seldom used by those who most need them.
There are positive indications, however. The police have become more responsive and better at recognising domestic abuse. Refuges remain vital in giving at least temporary safety and enabling women to move on. IDVAs are an invaluable addition to the practical support available; funding for them should be assured. Cafcass officers are now subject to a new Cafcass domestic abuse practice policy, based on hearing victims clearly and taking concerns seriously.
I do not wish to take any more time defending the role of the family courts, but we have to resolve conflicting claims of ulterior motives. There is now a very valuable Family Justice Council document giving welcome and important guidance, giving greater weight to domestic abuse allegations and to suggestions of potential alienation.
Istanbul Convention: Article 59
Lord Meston Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord has powerfully mentioned. As I have indicated, a review is being undertaken by my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, in the House of Commons. That review will be completed in short order, I hope, and I will be able to report its outcome back to this House in due course. I fully understand the passion with which the noble Lord speaks.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, it is well known that uncertainty about immigration status can be exploited by those wanting to continue to restrict and control a partner or former partner, so it is welcome that we now have some clarification about our compliance with the obligations under Article 59. The article is not open to abuse or misuse: it is confined by its terms to those in particularly difficult circumstances. In view of what the Minister has said, can he also confirm what will happen when the reservation, which was originally time limited, and I think remains so, expires?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The question of the expiry of Article 59 is part of the review. I find myself in the difficult position of repeating myself: a review is being undertaken and its outcome will be reported back to this House in due course, and a decision will be taken by the Government to maintain the previous Government’s reservation or change it. I am not in a position today to inform the House of the outcome of that review.
King’s Speech
Lord Meston Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, having been a family judge for some years, I welcome the opportunity to endorse what was just said about deprivation of liberty orders concerning children. I have had to make such orders myself, and they are very worrying. What is required is further inquiry into how that jurisdiction works.
I turn to the main topic of the debate. In the latter part of the last Parliament, useful work was done to produce what is now the Victims and Prisoners Act—the framework on which the new Government can build, and now have the time to do so. The greatest disservice to victims is caused by delays in getting their cases to and through the courts. There is no time now to analyse the reason for such delays—the backlogs, and what has become a chronic inability to catch up—but I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said, when he provided an impressive warm-up act for his own maiden speech. I urge the Government to take note of the Bar Council’s recent Manifesto for Justice, which proposes a requirement for Crown Court trials to start
“within six months of the first hearing”.
Surely that can and should be properly seen as an attainable target.
Avoidable delays cause most distress and strain in cases of sexual assault. Rape cases have a high rate of not-guilty pleas, requiring jury trials. The Government’s plan for designated rape courts is welcome, but it is unclear whether those specialist courts will be additional to, or simply part of, existing court capacity. Few court buildings have spare space suitable to the requirements of sensitive rape trials, in which defendants and witnesses have to be isolated and separated. Will these courts be confined to rape cases, or will other serious sexual offences be similarly dealt with there? This is an important part of the Government’s stated ambition to curtail violence against women and girls. Without a restoration of confidence in the processes facing victims, allegations will continue to be unreported. Ultimately, the measure of the success or failure of the Government’s plans will be how many victims of such offences would still say in future that they would not again participate in the criminal process.
The crisis of overcrowding in prisons that has prompted the need for early release, as well as a welcome promise to reinvigorate the probation service, has already been spoken to at some length. Therefore, I will not say more about it, other than to add that sentencing decisions, which can be difficult enough, should be governed by established and considered principles—with guidelines developed to ensure consistency and public confidence—rather than by the fluctuating size of the prison estate.
As is well known, and as the Lancet recently reported:
“People with mental health disorders are disproportionately represented in prison populations and are more likely to have poor physical health and social outcomes after prison”.
It is therefore crucial, to prevent reoffending and recidivism, that proper measures exist to prepare prisoners for release and to support them after release, at the very least in their first few weeks outside. It serves nobody if the first person to meet a newly released prisoner is his or her former drug dealer.
In that regard, we should commend and reinforce the work done by organisations such as the St Giles Trust and Unlock, which help those with criminal records lead stable lives; I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about that. On a separate note, I would inquire how the Government propose to revisit the problem of convicted criminals who resist, sometimes physically, attending court for sentencing. The last thing victims need or want is disruption of a sentencing hearing by a defiant defendant trying to attract attention. The imposition of an additional penalty for those facing long sentences will be no more than a token gesture; perhaps, therefore, the best answer for such conduct is to have some impact on parole.
I will not proceed to speak about family law, which I know most about, other than to say that I endorse most of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. However, I hope he would accept that the judiciary do their best to keep costs down.
I hope that the change in government will see an end to ill-considered attempts to curtail and disapply the Human Rights Act and the regard to be had for the European Convention on Human Rights. It has served us well in raising standards within the legal system and beyond, and should not be diluted.
