Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.

Domestic Violence Provention Orders/Notices Pilot - new police powers as from 1st July

(13 Posts)
AwesomePan Tue 05-Jul-11 11:44:23

This is a new measure to remove the assailant from the property rather than the victim - the level of evidence of violence /intimidation having taken place isn't clear at all, but nonetheless it offers a new power for protection.

It's piloted in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire, and West Mercia.

here

It's a multi-agency process and as such I will be concerned with the Greater Manchester pilot.
It's a piolt in 3 out of the 42 police areas, so many posters probably won't be aware of it. The extent of the order could keep an assailant away from the property for up to 28 days. This can be woven into bail conditions for those people charged.

AwesomePan Tue 05-Jul-11 11:48:01

just realised, it's 'protection order', not 'provention', which iirc, isn't even a word....

UsingMainlySpoons Tue 05-Jul-11 12:11:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DontCallMePeanut Tue 05-Jul-11 12:50:08

It sounds like an improvement... When I left my ex, I was transferred to several refuges. In one, DS (16 mo at the time) was assaulted by a ten year old girl who left finger marks down his back and in his arm (she claimed she'd been hugging him, then, whilst I was trying to comfort him and work out what was wrong, I noticed her digging her nails in his arm). This came at a time I was trying to protect DS. The second refuge I was transferred to was run with an element of misandry. We were conditioned to be afraid of men. Not just our exes. All men were abusers. We were given such strict rules to adhere to, that I felt suffocated, and the final straw came when I had to beg for permission to stay out past 8pm on my brother's birthday. (My ex was the other side of the country). I spent more time in that refuge afraid than I did empowered. In fact, I think that refuge had the highest rate of women returning to their abusers than any of the four I've come across. I was there 2 weeks, and out of six girls that were staying there, 3 went back, and one left with her parents in the middle of the night, to avoid telling the refuge manager she was leaving because of her.

I spent many a night, in each refuge, crying because I'd moved away from my friends, my job, my support network. I lost my best friend during my time in refuge, have missed countless birthdays, several weddings, and had to completely rebuild my friend base. I had to furnish my house from scratch, whilst the ex kept the sofas, beds, and everything else I'd bought. I spent six months after leaving the refuge without a washing machine, something that I'd had, complete with a tumble drier whilst at home. All my ex has lost is me and DS. Considering how little effort he put in with DS, I'm still struggling to see how he was punished. I felt like the criminal.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is, although the refuge system on the whole is a positive move, it does run the risk of making the victim feel like the perpetrator. There are some refuges run by power trippy individuals. If they find a way to make the protection order successful, then it could go a long way to empowering more victims to get rid of abusers. It's not easy when you know you're leaving almost everything behind.

AwesomePan Tue 05-Jul-11 13:00:56

yes, and thanks for posting DCMP - illustrates the point well - it is precisley these circs. that the pilot is looking to avoid.

I am involved in something called MARAC, which is multi-agency and focuses on victim rather than offender. MARAC is full of cases where the victim has left and the offender, unless the case is particularly serious, isn't going to jailed, so is left with the property.
Independent Domestic Abuse Advisors (not mentioned in the article I think) intervene at this early stage and their position will be massively empowered to give robust advice.

Thomas1969 Tue 05-Jul-11 17:31:51

I like the idea. my worry is that the offender will be able to return home at any time to do god knows what. if such a breach (returning to the home to continue DV) brought about immediate arrest (as in a breach of bail) then it yould be even better.

barbiegrows Tue 05-Jul-11 17:55:38

I think removal of the offender is a no-brainer if the woman requests that but you have to consider why it was never done before.

I think the only reason women leave is because they fear their lives are at risk. Statistics show that if a fatality occurs it is nearly always when the woman has started to take action to leave.

In these cases there is no way that a women would entrust the police to keep hold of her abuser only to let him find his way back home, to her and her children. Women leave to escape.

On the other hand, it would be helpful for cases where men are deemed to be less dangerous - but who can decide whether they are dangerous or not? What would happen after a man has been forcibly removed from his home by a team of coppers and possibly locked up? I think it may exacerbate his anger unless there is some kind of abuser support/analysis/rehab following his removal.

I think this is an excellent idea, though I appreciate what Barbiegrows is saying about the danger element in some cases. However, if these orders have immediate power of arrest attached, the danger is going to be lessened, and where the man is assessed as very dangerous indeed, there should be some provision for locking him up for a good long time anyway (he will, after all, have committed some crimes of violence against his partner for the order to be in place at all).
Though if the woman really feels the need to get away from a violent partner, perhaps there should also be some sort of confiscation order WRT furniture or the family home. There are, after all, laws in place to stop people profiting from (say) drug dealing or racketeering or any other crimes, why not a law to stop DV perpetrators profiting in material terms (drive the partner away by violence and keep all the household goods...)

AwesomePan Tue 05-Jul-11 18:20:29

I think all that has been said are valid points - we need to find out - that is what the pilot is designed to do. Breach of a DVPO would attract the option of a remand into custody. The assessment of how dangerous the situation really is would, in all probability be a shared responsibility with the victim, police intelligence, probation,, Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) Women's Aid, and any risks to children from children's social workers.

cantfindamnnickname Tue 05-Jul-11 19:35:30

If the police are called to a domestic violence incident then the police can award this "go order" they must then get the perpetrator to a magistrate within 48 hours and the order can be extended to 14 days. It is designed to get the person away to give the victim some space - it can take a few days for an occupation or a non-molestation order.

Also check out NAtional Centre for Domestic Violence - they help women obtain injunctions quickly. www.ncdv.org.uk/
although not live in all areas they are quickly becoming national

The emphasis should certainly be on removing the violent person and punishing the violent person, not least to the extent that the courts should be thinking right from the start along the lines of: family break up due to violence, it should be the violent partner who ends up in a bedsit with fuck all, not the victim.

barbiegrows Wed 06-Jul-11 12:36:57

OK - so what can go wrong? Even if the offender gets out, goes back to the family home and kicks off it will be much more obvious and overt, it will be possible to protect the family possibly better than if she 'escapes' and is found again. Would the home be fully protected if this happens?

AwesomePan Wed 06-Jul-11 13:08:50

Well people have been known to not abide by court orders - esp. men who are angry, scared of loss of control, been humiliated, and are very drunk.
The level of subsequent risk is likely to be assessed by the victim and the agencies involved. Panic alarms, and sometimes CCTV, can be fitted to homes IF the assailant is considered highly risky but he is not held in police or priosn custody.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now