Domestic violence suspects face being banned from home

[Lotster]

People suspected of abusing a partner could be banned from their homes for up to four weeks under government plans to tackle domestic violence.

The proposed "go orders" could be used even if there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect...

[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11836047 BBC
NEWS]]

Sounds like good news to me, especially for children living in homes where domestic violence occurs...

I thought this was always the case?

This sounds like a thorny one to me. If there isn't enough evidence to charge a suspect with assault and yet they are excluded from their home it could lead the way to accusations of victimisation, defamation of character, all kinds of things.

Trying to imagine if this would have helped my situation - exH would have gone to expensive hotel and I would have ended up stuck with the bill (I was main earner).

Can definitely picture some situations where it would be good though.

HAving worked in DV I dont know how it will be enforced.
Quite often the victim wants the offender back home.How will it be policed?
It will mean officers having to drop in unexpectedly I suppose - this could cause more problems - I dont know.

I can see it being a really good tool in really serious cases, but the more tit for tat ones I can envisage some people using it for their own ends.

How does this work if the person who is being excluded actually owns the house and the victim doesn't?

I'm giving this a cautious welcome.

But as sixtyfootdoll says, often the victim wants him back.

Plus how will they safeguard against false accusations? My ex attacked me in a drunken rage one night but if the police came, would I have been forced out of the house I own because she'd have lied her arse off and was expert in the crying little woman act.

Cautious welcome for me too.

Clearly separating a victim and perpretator of DV has to be a very good thing. It would save lives in some cases.

The problem I forsee is lawyers advising women to use this as a pretext for removing the man from the home before a divorce case comes to court and then using it to set a de facto outcome that the woman stays in the home with custody of the children. Would a cross word be enough for the police to act?

An order, no matter how unfairly granted would be bound to influence a court in later divorce hearings. I fear the positives of this might be undermined by the negatives.

Would compulsory charging work though? If the victim doesn't want the charge to be pursued it seems unlikely that they will cooperate and securing a conviction without the victims cooperation would be very difficult indeed.

I just don't see how prosecutions can be successful if the victim doesn't consent so they may choose to not cooperate, plus I'm not sure whether its right to force victims through the justice system even if they don't want to.

I think we do need to look at how to reduce DV but I'm not sure compulsory prosecutions is the way to go.

StewieGriffinsMom Sat 27-Nov-10 10:28:08

"if a neighbour calls it in, the person responsible is arrested and charged."

if this had been done on my street the man would have been arressted and kickout when it was the woman that was the abuser.

I only know this because my next door neighbour and I went round to the nieghbour on the other side to "rescue" the woman only to find the man in tears trying to protect thier child from the mother.

So your provision wouldn't work as the neighbour could be pointing the finger at the wrong person.