Lawyers have given a cautious welcome to the government’s draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which will prevent alleged abusers from cross-examining their victims in court.
Other key features include a statutory definition of domestic abuse, the appointment of a commissioner responsible for prevention of domestic abuse and support for victims, and strengthened police powers and preventative notices and orders.
Chair of the Bar Council Richard Atkins QC said: ‘It is absolute common sense that victims of abuse should not be interrogated by those who have abused them.
‘We are pleased that the government is now taking action to correct what has been a gap in the law for too long. The criminal courts have had measures in place for some time in certain classes of case to prevent abusers questioning those they have abused.’
Atkins added that the situation has been exacerbated by the increase in people representing themselves without the help of a lawyer as a result of legal aid cuts in family cases.
Simon Burge, partner at Blake Morgan, welcomed the extra safeguards for victims but warned that ‘what the final Bill will need to recognise is that by removing the right to cross-examine, there needs to be a robust and fair alternative in order to establish facts and—where needed—challenge evidence.
‘These are often complex, highly emotive and extremely stressful cases, so making sure a scheme is in place—such as offering a court-appointed duty solicitor with the right skill set—will make sure hearings are fair, balanced, objective, and ultimately secure the right results for victims.’
The Bill, published this week, also introduces polygraph testing for convicted domestic abusers. However, Matthew Hardcastle, Kingsley Napley associate, said: ‘Lie-detector testing is a headline-grabbing proposal but its use is limited and likely to come at significant cost… statute limits polygraphs usage to only the most extreme cases.
‘Many domestic abuse cases are handled at the magistrates’ court, where sentencing is limited to a maximum period of six months (for a single offence) so polygraphs would not apply. The quality of the lie detector test is also dependant on the calibre of those who interpret responses to questions and the resultant physiological indicators. If imposed, extensive, and undoubtedly expensive, training will be needed before any scheme is launched.’
