Woman found guilty of defamation for describing her exh's DV

[Bluestitch]

He put his hands round her throat. But the judge decided he was only trying to silence her, not kill her so she shouldn't have used the term 'strangled'. And she has also been suffering cancer during this legal battle. She's taking it to the Supreme Court, good for her.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/23/woman-found-have-defamed-ex-husband-facebook-takes-fight-supreme/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Wait, what?

OK, this is heavily caveated by saying I haven't read the case. It really does depend on the detail.

But one thing I learned from the David Irving case is that where a libel case is brought, and the defence is that the defendant was telling the truth, it is not necessary for ALL of what the defendant said to be true.

Eg If I publicly call someone a thief and say they have stolen my handbag, ring, and money from a bedside table, then they cannot successfully sue me for libel if they only took the handbag and money. Because the sting of the libel is true.

Similarly, when Jeffrey Archer was jailed for perjury, it was pointed out that anyone could now safely claim he'd lied about anything, because having been shown up as a liar he now had no reputation which could be damaged.

If I've understood all that correctly, then Justice Mitting's comments imply he thinks that a man putting his hands around someone's neck to strangle them paints that man as a "dangerous and thoroughly disreputable man", but that the man putting his hands around someone's neck in order to stop them speaking when he doesn't want them to, does NOT paint him as a "dangerous and thoroughly disreputable man".

Which would certainly be an... interesting point of view.

Obviously I may be wrong in my understanding of this.

It appears that she is being penalised for use of the word 'tried', and the fact that he did actually put his hands round her neck and manage not to kill her is going in his favour. What he did to her constitutes strangling in one of the dictionary definitions. Using 'tried to', according to the judge, means that she was using the other definition. It's fucking appalling.

Which is what I said earlier. The judge is telling us that he thinks men using physical force to prevent their wives from speaking is fine and that the law supports that action.

It is well documented that an attempt to strangle is more than a red flag for future and increasing DV, often resulting in manslaughter/ murder.
This is so v worrying, that a judge, overseeing a case of this nature, does not recognise, or refuses to see this as potential attempted murder and this could well escalate to such..
Anyone involved in DA knows this.
Horrifying.

Is it Lundy Bancroft or some other author who said that if a man puts his hands around your neck you should assume he means to kill you?

From the UK 15 high risk factors of serious harm or homicide in domestic abuse cases Strangulation (choking/suffocation/drowning): escalating violence, including the use of weapons and attempts at strangulation must be recorded when identifying and assessing risk. This includes all attempts at blocking someone's airway.

The first major study of surviving victims of strangulation assault found that 99% of the 300 victims in criminal cases involving "choking" were female. In 2000, a meta-analytic review of gender differences in physical aggression against a heterosexual partner concluded that ". ..'choke or strangle' is very clearly a male act, whether based on self- or partner reports." A similar conclusion was reached in a 2014 multi-nation review: "…women are more likely than men to report that they were strangled by an intimate partner. According to a large U.S. case control study, prior strangulation is a substantial and unique predictor of attempted and completed homicide of women by a male intimate partner. The study showed that the odds of becoming an attempted homicide victim increased 7-fold and the odds of becoming a homicide victim increased 8-fold for women who had been strangled by their partner.

And from the USA, this research from the amazing Dr Jacquelyn Campbell (John Hopkins) and others:

Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women

Similarly, in Australia, strangulation is the last warning shot” domestic violence death reviews have often identified that the homicide was preceded by an incident of non-fatal strangulation. As American strangulation educator Gael Strack says, “strangulation is the last warning shot”.
In response to this evidence, Queensland introduced a non-fatal strangulation offence in 2016. One of the elements of the offence is that the victim and the offender must be in a domestic relationship. The penalty is a maximum of seven years imprisonment.
Since the non-fatal strangulation offence was introduced, over 1000 people have been charged with it. The offence has significantly raised the profile of the dangers of strangulation, with Queensland judges now highlighting these dangers in their judgments.

2018 The New South Wales Government is introducing the new offence of "strangulation" in an attempt to reduce domestic murders.

Key points:

Strangulation is a factor in a quarter of domestic murders in NSW
The length of apprehended domestic violence orders will also be increased
If passed, the changes will come into effect later this year
Only half of the 600 cases involving strangulation that have gone to court since 2014 resulted in convictions because the offence is often hard to prove.

Minister for Family and Community Services Pru Goward said strangulation was a factor in a quarter of all domestic murders.

"To treat strangulation seriously, because it's such a strong indicator of a likelihood of a fatal attack, it's been important to reform the laws regarding strangulation, and that's what we've done," she said.

The NSW Government expects the change will come into effect this year.

But anyway, how would she know he wasn't trying to kill her? How do they know he wasn't?

And the context, which seems to have been ignored: she was warning another woman not to get involved with him. Because of what he'd done to her.

It's so worrying that common sense (as well as the law) is not being applied here.

But anyway, how would she know he wasn't trying to kill her?

Exactly. I mean if we take this ruling to its logical conclusion, had she hit him or kicked him to get him off her, could she be charged with assault? After all, he was only trying to silence her so no self defence.

But one thing I learned from the David Irving case is that where a libel case is brought, and the defence is that the defendant was telling the truth, it is not necessary for ALL of what the defendant said to be true.

Yes the barrister has just argued that what she claimed was 'sufficiently true' as to not adversely affect his reputation.

That's the thing, we don't know (and probably neither does she) and can't prove whether he was trying to shut her up or end her life. And he could have fucking killed her and then he could have told the story in his own words like so many other fuckers.

Heartbreaking that this is happening in 2019!!!!!!!!!!

I hope the legal service gets brought to task for allowing this.

I wonder if the Human Rights Council would be interested in this case, to me it is so clear cut.

He could easily have killed her and there would be no witness to what actually happened. He is now attempting to silence her, again.

"Yes the barrister has just argued that what she claimed was 'sufficiently true' as to not adversely affect his reputation."

yes, he was held overnight wasn't he, so anyone who knows the case knows about his 'reputation'.

Where does all this stand with freedom of speech?

You can donate to this...

www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2019/1/23/protest-over-libel-case-that-has-chilling-implications-for-women-who-speak-out-over-domestic-violence

Not sure if it directly relates to this case.

Her barrister excellent now, very clear on the danger of putting hands round neck etc

Mr Justice Mitting you are obviously not able to do your job properly, you should be up in fromt of a tribunal for your victim blaming, misogynist and dangerous ruling.

Our country needs to overhaul our justice system, focusing on the culture of misogony and victim shaming/blaming that is demonstrated by judges in the uk. It is time to put these judges that hold sexist views to pasture (sacked)

We need more forward thinking and aware judges to step forward and lead the way in tackling this issue.

Also judgement gave damages because she was deemed to have falsely inferred he was dangerous- her barrister saying that she didn't ever use the word dangerous, it can't be right for a victim of DV to have to prove the perpetrator is dangerous. But even if she inferred that, he is in fact a dangerous man. European court protects opinions even that are unreasonable so her opinion that he is dangerous should certainly be protected as it has factual basis.

Don't think I can bear to listen to other side now.

He also made the point- judge appeared to base his view that the man was not 'dangerous' on his ruling that he hadn't intended to kill. Barrister argued that it is possible to be a dangerous partner even without physical violence. Then listed this man's threats, breaches of non mol etc. Mitting is a menace.

That young woman in the background looks horrified.

Yes, if we're talking about dictionary definitions, how could a DV perpetrator be anything other than disreputable and dangerous?

Is there a petition we can sign? This judge is a joke. This man's actions tell a story of who he is. She simply told the truth. Unbelievably depressing.

Are they having a lunch break or is that it?

It's resumed now for those interested.

www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Watching now.

They seem to be quite worried about concluding that the judge is wrong.

Other side appears to be arguing that an appellate court disagreeing with the original trial judge's meaning of a word shouldn't overrule original trial judge who should be given 'deference'. Arguing that allowing this would open up a 'lottery'. Excuse clumsy updates, I'm finding it quite hard to follow at present.

What a surprise! It's a rich white man. Seems that they're held to a different set of laws. I wonder if the judge was from the same demographic.

OP, I’m in awe of you.

My bar is set at understanding more than two sentences in a row.

They seem to be quite worried about concluding that the judge is wrong

Yes very focused on this- barrister just argued that allowing appellate court to substitute original interpretation for their own would allow a 'free for all'.

Thanks Family!