Another batshit legal decision

My violent coercive controlling relationship when I was 18/19 has affected me ever since, and I've had another one since then.

Well, I’ve just had a look - there are two ways of showing serious effect

I it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them - s.76 (4)(a); or
If it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities - s.76 (4)

Then there are some examples of what might constitute the latter one- non exhaustive-.

Stopping or changing the way someone socialises
Physical or mental health deterioration
A change in routine at home including those associated with mealtimes or household chores
Attendance record at school
Putting in place measures at home to safeguard themselves or their children
Changes to work patterns, employment status or routes to work

Obviously the easier one to go for is the first, as that less open to interpretation.

Powershower, thing is, even if the judge has only met her once, shouldn’t matter. The prosecution has the responsibility of securing the conviction. A detailed statement would or should have been taken addressing the issue of ‘serious adverse affect”, and then she would have given verbal evidence at trial based on the statement with the prosecution asking her relevant questions.
It is only guesswork at to whether someone didn’t do their job properly.

How high must this judges bar be to convinct for coercive control???
What does it mean if not this???

I wonder if this would be an ideal focal point for complaining that FPFW might be able to coordinate?

If anybody knows any of the personnel there?

Being controlled like that for 4 years has got to have a serious effect, even if the woman didn't look and sound humiliated and broken enough to satisfy a judge who presumably only met her once.
I remember the cricketer case.
Did anyone see the "No Great Trauma" documentary? We were shown it in school over 20 years ago. Nothing changes.

The problem here is that this relatively new offence requires that the actions of the perpetrator have had a “serious adverse effect” on the victim. This is unlike the crimes of assault or rape where the emotional effect on the victim is only relevant to sentencing, not conviction. The judge felt that they didn’t. I find this a bit weird, but maybe the prosecution didn’t set out the effects very well. Or yes, maybe the judge is just a bit rubbish.

What do you mean, Sawdust? That he was acquitted of the charge of coercive control? That's exactly the problem here, isn't it?

Well no one seems to have understand this case yet. Still, I must be vigilant against the offence of mansplaining.

[hint] : go back to the article to see the charge for which he was acquitted and work it out from there. Google is your friend.

That's the scheme I was taking about, so thanks for the actual link @UpstartCrow.

Maybe it was you that posted it previously, asking for support to increase Jason Gaskell's sentence (as I hadn't heard about it prior to that)?
I complained about the sentence Jason Gaskell received, and received a confirmation email acknowledging receipt, but don't actually know what the outcome was.

Mail readers showing a better understanding of DA than a judge! You could not make this up!!

The Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme;
www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

You can email or phone, you need some details of the case;
-name of the person who got the sentence
-date the sentence was given
-court where the case was held
-crime committed

Defendant Paul Measor was jailed for five months for two common assaults at Teesside Magistrates’ Court in October.
If anyone can find the date it would help.

Women are not considered to be vulnerable unless completely broken or dead Women aren't even victims of murder when they are dead if their killer says it happened rough sex they consented too.

This has made me angry at a point where I am already feeling so angry about men and their abuse.

This is so fucked up.
Women are not considered to be vulnerable unless completely broken or dead, yet males who claim womanhood are somehow the most vulnerable people on the fucking planet!

Misogyny rules.

It's the Office of the Attorney General and I think it's the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme. IIRC, you've 28 days from sentencing to make a complaint that they look at it again.

That's awful!

Might be worth complaining and asking them to look at the judgment/sentence again.

I know this is something that can be done by any member of the public as someone posted a link previously on a different thread. If they get lots of responses I think they're more likely to look at it again.

The very principle of sentencing someone based on the effect on the victim seems utterly ludicrous, anyway. Regardless of whether the victim is fragile or resilient, the crime is exactly the same. Does any rapist or violent assailant first make a moral assessment where they think, "I'll attack this woman because she's quite strong and won't be too badly affected by it?" Of course they bloody don't.

And in any case it should be obvious that someone who appears resilient on the outside might feel utterly destroyed on the inside.

Can’t be a victims because the is too strong?

What a steaming 🤬

This reminds me of something that happened to me. 100% less serious, not comparable at all. But when my dad died, less than a week after the funeral I lost my temper because I was drowning under everything. A mountain of shot landed on me because I was “fine”. Not fine at all, I was internalising a world of pain so that I could carry on and look after everyone else.
That’s what this woman is experiencing, head down, shoulder forward to the burden and keep moving. She’s unpicking her whole entire life and if she’s anythung like me, keeping a tight lid on it. Eventually though the pressure is too much. Does she get to go back to court when she can’t cope? Will he be fling in jail for more years when suddenly her life spins out of control.
I wonder where judges come from some times.

Yes, if the police and court system could make a listicle that would be very handy.

Sorry, I'm confused. Can someone write a list of acceptable ways for a victim to behave? Maybe we need a chart so women can stop wasting their time before going to the police.

"sexy" pants. No go.

Big pants. No go. Probably repressed and wanted it but changed her mind.

Strong. No go.

Frail, upset, crying. No go (not reliable!)

Angry (man hater!)

Anyone left?

Rememberatime exactly.