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

Lord (Kerr?) - how could original judge make judgement to include that claimant wrongly implied he was dangerous when he did no specific fact finding on this issue?

He's finished. Now other side back up.

Lord- original judgement based upon judge finding that her FB comments implied attempt to kill. If we don't find that to be the case to what extent might that unravel the judge's fact finding?

Yes, that was interesting. Looked like he was trying to find a way out of this mess.

I've witnessed a DV incident in which the victim was, let's say, handled in the same manner. It wasn't 'unattractive', it was violent, horrifying, sickening and frightening. I despair.

Thanks for the updates, OP!

Yes, it does go to show that different words mean different things to different people. Unattractive is not a word that would ever spring to mind for me. Strangle is.

Why would anyone need a non molestation order unless there was some danger?
Why would anyone repeatedly breach non molestation orders unless they were dangerous?

Barrister- Mitting both downplayed and fundamentally misunderstood the nature of domestic abuse and those who may commit it with his 'gangster' comments.

Something now about comments about a North London gangster demonstrating "a misunderstanding of domestic violence and the type of men who might engage in it".

Yes.

xpost on that little gem

Barrister- saying that original judge used the dictionary as the entire case rather than just to check, and therefore ignored any context or his clients own evidence in his judgement and deciding what she had meant by her words- she merely relayed facts that had happened.

Barrister- when he cross examined Mr Stocker he acknowledged that anybody who put their hands round neck and left marks would be considered dangerous, his defence was that he didn't do it. Since it was found that he did do it, on what basis can his client be dragged to court and sued?

Setting a very dangerous precedent 😯😡

I am absolutely baffled by this case. In what world does a woman who has a man's hand clamped on her throat to the extent that hand marks are left for a period of at least 2 hours (I say at least 2 hours because I don't know if they then faded), have to go to court to defend her use of the word "strangled"?

At the end of the day, this comes down to an Oxford Vs Cambridge matter, doesn't it?

These people have no fucking idea about DV.

Barrister argued defamation principles weren't applied correctly, as Mrs Stocker made no comment on his character but merely relayed what he did to her.

Barrister appeared to say that Mitting decided on dictionary definition at start of case, and therefore it coloured everything thereafter- when he decided that Mrs Stocker must have meant 'intent to kill' and based his judgement on that rather than the evidence she gave as she never even mentioned those words- is that right anybody else who watched? I'm not very academic so struggled a bit towards the end!

A very worrying state of affairs. Fascinating from a case law perspective.

Aren't these men ashamed to be apologists for this?

Not at all, apparently. I'm ashamed that it has been only in the past couple of years that it's become apparent to me how many men are not just complicit but actively enjoy dominating women through the system of patriarchy.

Will there be a ruling on this today?

Not at all, apparently. I'm ashamed that it has been only in the past couple of years that it's become apparent to me how many men are not just complicit but actively enjoy dominating women through the system of patriarchy.

YY. A clearer example of how patriarchy works in this country to oppress women would be hard to find. Next up: they argue about how the thickness of the switch must be less than that of a man's thumb.

Bluestitch, thank you for your sterling work. I couldn't have sat through that.

You're right Grinitch. I was forgetting that.

Slight derail but New Zealand has recently passed a law criminalising strangulation as it has been found to be a feature of DV used to subdue and terrorise women, and also frequently escalated to death either intentionally or "accidentally " , recognising it is a particularly dangerous thing to do.

I'll try to find link when I have WiFi.

We need a similar law here. In any case I believe the thoughts/facts behind that ruling is relevant to this case.

Yes Bluestitch, the thrust was that the judge fixated on the dictionary definition rather than looking at the broader context and that that was an error.

The gangster stuff really had me agog. Mitting seemed to have said that the wife had misrepresented her husband as some kind of North London () gangster when he was a BILLIONAIRE. Billionaires don't do this kind of thing.

Surely strangling is a criminal offence already - would come under GBH?

Have they forgotten what Charles Saatchi did to Nigella in public?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518207/amp/Why-Charles-Saatchi-grabbed-throat-Nigella-Lawson-explains.html