Niki Scordi rightly says that domestic abuse victims and their children should not face more trauma by becoming homeless when leaving abusers, blaming councils for not suitably rehousing them (Letters, 26 September). It is of course abusers who should be leaving. Domestic violence injunctions (“non-molestation orders”) were massively strengthened in 1996 when judges were mandated to attach powers of arrest. If a victim reported that the injunction had been breached by a threat of – or actual – violence, police had to immediately arrest the respondent and bring him before a senior judge the next working day to show why he should not face a possible two years’ custody for contempt, namely breaking a judge’s order.
Such swift consequences brought 90% compliance. Crucially, orders could be made for children to remain in the family home until the youngest had completed full-time education, before the sale and division of the proceeds.
However, judges were prevented from attaching powers of arrest when the breach of an injunction became a criminal offence in 2004. Now, on breach, victims lose the injunction’s protection – and their legal aid – to (theoretically) testify in criminal proceedings. The standard sentence is a community service order that may be served back in the family home. As the point of injunctions is to enable safe separation from an abuser, the cruel absurdity of the present situation is clear.
Jan Williams
The Campaign for Effective Domestic Abuse Laws
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
