header-logo header-logo

New Domestic Abuse Bill

17 July 2019
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Expanded definition to include economic abuse, coercive control & manipulation

A landmark Domestic Abuse Bill to tackle the issue and protect victims was laid before Parliament this week.

It includes the first statutory definition of domestic abuse, which will include economic abuse, coercive control and manipulation; prohibits the cross-examination of victims by their abusers in the family courts; establishes a Domestic Abuse Commissioner to champion victims and survivors; creates Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs) to place restrictions on offenders; and gives automatic eligibility for special measures to support more victims to give evidence in the criminal courts.

A draft bill was published in January, following a public consultation that received more than 3,200 responses, and scrutinised by a joint Parliamentary committee. The government accepted the majority of the committee’s recommendations and has committed to further amendments as the bill progresses.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: ‘Domestic abuse can take many forms, from horrific physical violence to coercive behaviour that robs people of their self-esteem, their freedom and their right to feel safe in their own homes, but the immense bravery I’ve seen demonstrated by survivors is consistent throughout.’

The government also announced this week that it will ensure access to refuges for asylum seekers suffering domestic abuse and review the statutory response to migrant victims of domestic abuse.

Rights of Women (ROW), which provides free legal advice to women, said it welcomed the ban on direct cross-examination of victims but remained ‘concerned that the drafting of the provision is insufficient to fully protect women from abuse’. It called for extra safeguards to ensure DAPOs work effectively, including making sufficient resources and legal aid available to ensure victims’ views are central to decision-making, giving police rather than the victim responsibility, where appropriate, for applying for the order, and adequate monitoring of compliance with orders.

ROW, the Step Up Migrant Women coalition and other groups called for greater protection of migrant women suffering abuse, regardless of immigration status.  

Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll