to think that a £125 fine for punching your girlfriend in the face is a joke?

[RosyAuroch]

Last year DH and I witnessed (kind of) some guy threaten to kill his girlfriend before chasing her down the street and punching her in the face.

We heard him try to kick her down in. and shout “I’m going to fucking kill you”, so we called the police (whilst we got dressed, we were in bed). Whilst we were waiting (they took about 15 minutes to arrive0, he then chased her down the street and punched her in the face according to another witness.

The police later told us that her 2 yo daughter was in the house (I think that’s why she ran out, to try and draw him away from the house/her daughter).

Twice we went to court to be witnesses, because this kind of thing is just wrong. First time it was postponed, second time (this week) he pleaded guilty and got a £125 fine. WTAF?

Isn’t what he did a bit more serious than a £125 fine? Even if you’re on benefits and £125 os a fortune, surely this is a custodial sentence, not a fine.

Also, both times we were the only witnesses to turn up.

In related news, last night our downstairs neighbour had a fight with his girlfriend at 1.30am. I heard shouting, went to the window in the spare room at the front to find the source, realised it was downstairs not outside. Could hear what was being shouted (“You fucking manipulative little cow” over and over) then loud bangs/thuds and a scream. I was still up so I stuck on some shoes, ran downstairs and banged on the door til I got an answer.

She came to the door, upset but unhurt. I asked her if she was safe and ok. She said she was, just he was very upset, had had too much to drink and she was trying to understand why he was so upset. I said “As long as you are ok?” and she said she was and thanked me. So I went back upstairs, sat in our spare room above their bedroom where the shouting was coming from, and after about 30 seconds of still raised voices it went back down to conversational level. Stayed there for about half an hour so I was sure it has calmed down

So I’m pretty convinced I did that because I now have no faith in the police or judicial system to deal with these things. A) If anything bad was happening they wouldn’t get there fast enough to stop it B) I really believed her that she was ok- I would have bundled her upstairs into our flat if I had any doubts about it.

Today I am pretty tired and shaky. I’m also thinking through whether I did the right thing. I know if I had banged on the door three times and gotten no answer I would have been back upstairs and calling the police. She answered after the second time I knocked practically hammered it down.

Rosy "The police officers who took our statement definitely left me with the impression that she was reluctant/unwilling to take it further. That was part of the reason we took being witnesses really seriously (and I am glad we did, as of 8 being called, on both occasions we were the only 2 to turn up- the guy at the witness check in desk basically told us this both times)."

Well done for turning up. IMO this is why we need to move towards the approach pioneered in other countries (and, I think, beginning to gain a foothold here) of prosecuting DV on forensic evidence and witness statements even if the victim won't press charges. Women in abusive relationships are typically so under-the-thumb, so terrified about what they perceive to be their lack of options, and suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome, that after the immediate and accute danger is over, they retract their statements, either in the hope that things will get better, or the fear that things will get a lot worse if they don't retract. It's one of the reasons I'd like to see a lot of custodial sentences - rather than trying to get women away from abusive men, we need to put the abusive men out of circulation for a long time.

f prosecuting DV on forensic evidence and witness statements even if the victim won't press charges.

We do that. I am not sure what kind of "forensic evidence" you mean, but it is always put before the court.

If there is an independent witness like the OP, then that will go a long way to secure conviction.

But there are wider issues at play. Should ANYONE by convicted of anything on the basis of one person's word on a piece of paper? It can't be challenged, no questions can be asked.

Another route often taken is to summons the complainant - i.e. threaten her with arrest if she does not attend.

I defend and prosecute in DV matters and I understand the complexity of it all. The courts are definitely getting better - for example, we do not drop a prosecution just because a complainant says they no longer support it.

Also OP - sorry I assumed you were in England & Wales. I am afraid I can't help with Scots law!

LurcioAgain Thank you.

And I pretty much agree with what you said. Factors like Stockholm Syndrome aside, I do also understand why someone would not want to press charges out of fear of retaliation. That is based on having seen how ineffective the current system can be in preventing assault or effectively sanctioning the offender.

So even if a victim isn't suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (which I think they do in many cases) I can see how a rational evaluation amounting to "the system can't protect me, I won't engage with it" can be made. I'm not saying that is right, but I am saying I could see how someone could come up with that base don how things currently work. As a society we need to bootstrap ourselves out of that situation into much more effective set-up.

Calling it "domestic violence" doesn't help. I get really irritated when I see it used in news reports or statements from MPs or police. Really fucking trivialises it in my opinion.

Same as "child sex" when it should be "child rape".

Thanks Summerbreezer

On the one hand I see that many people are trying their best. But I also think the outcomes (the girl being actually assaulted as opposed to "just" threatened- the latter happened at least ten minutes after we phoned the police and also the resulting sentence) show that something is definitely going wrong somewhere.

I'm trying to make sense of what "should" be the case, what "is" the case and how to best act if this situation (or a similar one, like the neighbours last night) happens again.

And nothing is quite clicking with me yet. I really get how intervening could bring either myself or a victim into greater danger. But I also don't know if, when push comes to shove, I am the kind of person who could stand by and see/hear someone else harmed if I could do anything about it at all, especially in a time critical situation.

With the court situation, I do get how what DH and I did helped, but a big part of me wishes we had been able to ensure she didn't get punched in the face in the street.

The fact is though Rosy, the only person responsible for what happened was the defendant. Just him. No-one else is to blame.

As for the police, with cuts in public funding I am afraid I don't see 15 mins as that unreasonable. Also, you don't know what else was going on - there may have been someone getting stabbed in the opposite side of the city.

Of course the best outcome is that no crime is ever committed. But the society we would have to put up with in order to ensure that is too dreadful to contemplate.

I work in the criminal justice system and I want the following things:

1. Perpetrators of domestic abuse to be convicted and sentenced appropriately and dispassionately.

1. No witness to ever be too scared or too intimidated to come to court

1. The system of justice we have built to be upheld and protected.

I genuinely do not know how we meet all three of those goals.

The CPS regularly charge common assault where ABH would be appropriate - because common assault does not and ABH does carry a right to trial by jury which is much more expensive. If that is what he is convicted of that is what he is sentenced for and if had no previous the Bench can't give him a custodial for a common assault.

The bench can give a good character defendant a custodial sentence for common assault if it is a category 1 offence, Andrew. Not saying whether this was or not, but it is not entirely out of the question.

But that is in E&W, the OP is in Scotland.

Summerbreezer The cuts to public funding I do see as unreasonable though.

I'm sure there were other things going on at the time- but that would be about adequate staffing levels.

I'm not arguing that we should aim for a society where no crime is ever committed and I think you are attempting reductio ad absurdum inappropriately there. Honestly, we could do a lot better on this without turning to the Stasi or into some Minority Report-esque dystopia.

But honestly, I thought that repeated calls re a threat made on someone's life, in a reasonably sized city (and located pretty centrally within it) would have warranted a quicker response than it did.

In this case, I think your three aims were met to this degree:

1. I don't think he was convicted and sentenced appropriately. There were several trade-offs within the system, that were necessary due at least in part to the current state of the system, that contributed to this.
2. Two witnesses out of eight turned up. it could be that six of them couldn't be bothered to turn up. Or some of them could have been scared. Or some of them could have been disillusioned. I would also say that given we had to chase the court re the second date, it is entirely possible that some of the witnesses didn't know about the correct time and place. Also, given what I saw about reimbursement of travel expenses, childcare costs, loss of earning if self-employed, I can genuinely see how someone might struggle financially to turn up. Thankfully that wasn't an issue for us, but something like £1 an hour offered towards childcare, with no indication of how long it would be needed for, or if there would need to be multiple occasions? How is that even beginning to meet that cost. I'm seeing that it's not just cuts to legal aid that are limiting impoverished communities access to justice. Then factor in people having seen how the system works, or fails to work, before, then I really see world weariness setting in as a result of how the sytem is both run and what it achieves.
3. Something was achieved here. Various people involved did manage to ensure that the perpetrator suffered some consequences for his actions. I don't think that is really enough to meet the condition of upholding and protecting the system of justice we have built. Minor case of stopping it falling in on itself all together. But I am always wary of situations where protecting the system is a goal in itself, without reference to what the system achieves for those it protects and who protect it.

Andrewofgg In that case, making the decision on what the charge is based on cost is the unreasonable/unjust part. Likelihood of securing a conviction I can see being a relevant factor (if a bit of a slippery slope/fast track to complacency), but cost, not so much. Not quibbling that it happens, but a bit disappointed it does IYSWIM.

Agreed but it is exceptionally unlikely on a guilty plea and then will almost always be suspended. I should not have said can't which was putting it too high.

That of course is in England. Sorry I did not spot that it was in Scotland. Should have RTFT.

Rosy I'm not defending the practice of undercharging - just saying it happens.

I think I realise what some of the disconnect is for me.

It seems to me wholly unrealistic/missing the point to talk of things like "reasonable response times" in situations of violence, which are bound to be unreasonable situations. As well as critical, emergent, vital, potentially decisive etc.

So a system that isn't able to process and respond to the unreasonable appropriately (that doesn't mean in kind by the way), is always going to be playing catch-up at best, and being in a state of endemic failure is a not unlikely outcome given the additional factor of resource constraints.

It's a rationalising and rationing mindset applied in an inappropriate setting. Efficiency being put before effectiveness.

Mrs Wolowitz I do understand that, I'm just saying it's wrong that that is the case. That it is under resourced. I am not saying that any police officer did anything wrong. I am am saying that I don't think the police force was able to respond effectively. And I also coming to realise that the court system is a lot less effective than I had thought. I had probably quite an idealised picture of it based on television etc. And having seen it in action first hand, it is very different.

Mrs Wolowitz Well, primarily I think there should have more police officers on duty.

I never said that I though the police officers involved acted inappropriately. I said that I don't think the police force was able to respond effectively. And it does look like underresourcing is a big part of that (attitudes to domestic incidents could be another factor).

I really am starting to think that our society is falling to pieces. People in work reliant on foodbanks, insufficient police to do a job effectively.

Andrewofgg I know, it's what I suspected, it's just sad to hear it confirmed and, like you I don't think it makes it right. .

MrsWolowitz My point is, just because the police can't respond more quickly due to lack of resources, doesn't mean that we, as a society, should just accept that what they are now able to do is enough and therefore the stem is magically stil working. My point is that it isn't working. Not because it is the police's fault.

MrsWolowitz I never said it was down to the police. I said I had no faith that the police would be able to be effective should a similar situation repeat itself.

I can how a response time of 15 minutes is "reasonable" from the point of view of "we have £x, which means this many officers, and there are however many incidents going on". But my point was, from the point of view of the girl who got punched, 15 minutes really wasn't a good enough response time was it? And the second point seems to be the more important thing to me tbh.

And I am seeing that really what I am thinking is that failures like that are evidence that resources aren't adequate.

In an ideal world there'd be no violent bloody swine in the first place!