Saturday 19 October, 1.30pm until 3.00pm, Frobisher Auditorium 2 Private or public morality?
The very public incident involving Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi earlier this year made domestic violence a major talking point, but the issue already had a high profile. Last year, home secretary Theresa May said tackling domestic violence was one of the government’s most important tasks. The government has accordingly enacted a series of changes designed to make it easier for the authorities to intervene to prevent violence in the home. Last year, a new definition of ‘domestic violence’ was adopted into policy, which included psychological, emotional and financial abuse. The 2010 Crime and Security Act introduced ‘domestic violence protection orders’, which allowed for those accused of violence against their partners to be forced to leave their homes without any criminal trial. At the end of last year, a number of police forces up and down the country piloted ‘Clare’s law’, whereby those who suspected a partner of having a violent past could apply to the police for details of any convictions for violent offences.
Many have seen these changes as vital in combating a particularly difficult area of criminal law. Some have also pointed out that police failures with regards to these cases have often had tragic consequences, citing the fact that two women every week are murdered by their partners. But others have argued the changes unnecessarily infringe our civil liberties, and foster an dangerous climate of suspicion. Others have cited concerns about treating one particular area of offending more seriously than others, arguing that this undermines the rule of law.
Of course, vulnerable people in turbulent relationships may need the protection of the police. But has the state’s attempts to curb and prevent domestic violence gone too far? Is police involvement in these cases, which are by their nature deeply complex, always a good thing? Should ending domestic violence be seen by the government as one of its ‘most important tasks’ or has the law in this area given the state too much power to intervene?
Aneurin Brewer
barrister working in criminal law; regularly instructed for both the prosecution and defence in Magistrates and Crown Courts |
|
Kate Brown
lecturer in social policy, University of York |
|
Barbara Hewson
barrister, Middle Temple; writer and commentator |
|
Helen Reece
reader in law, LSE |
|
Dr Jacki Tapley
principal lecturer and associate head (academic), Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth |
|
Chair: | |
Luke Gittos
criminal lawyer; director of City of London Appeals Clinic; legal editor at spiked; author, Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth: From Steubenville to Ched Evans |
A man with a hammer sees a world full of nails, Buckminster Fuller said. Keir Starmer sees a world full of domestic violence, because he is out to stop it.
James Heartfield, spiked, 11 July 2013The time has come for all this to stop. The nation has thoroughly, if rather disgracefully, enjoyed itself by gossiping about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson for quite long enough. We have pored over every ugly picture — and ugly they certainly were — and we have gaped and gasped to our national heart’s content.
Carol Sarler, Daily Mail, 25 June 2013More than 50 women in Greater Manchester have been given information about their partners to see if they are at risk of domestic violence.
BBC, 24 June 2013Maria Stubbings’ death was terrible, but a public inquiry would lead to even more hamfisted official intervention.
Luke Gittos, spiked, 23 May 2013Citizens Advice says it received reports of attacks from 13,500 people – 80% of them women – in 2012
Alexandra Topping, Guardian, 7 March 2013Police will be able to prevent suspected domestic abusers from returning to a victim’s home, under a pilot scheme launched by the Home Office today.
Liberal Democrats, 30 June 2011