Supreme Court widens definition of violent abuse
Solicitors have welcomed a Supreme Court ruling that domestic violence extends beyond physical contact to include other forms of violent conduct.
Giving judgment in Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow last week, Lady Hale said that ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 includes physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse that, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm. She said ‘physical violence’ is not the only natural meaning of the word ‘violence’; another is ‘strength or intensity of emotion, fervour, passion’. Hale added that international and governmental understanding of the term had developed beyond physical contact.
The case concerned the council’s duty to provide housing for people who had become homeless. The appellant left her home with her two children because of her husband’s behaviour, which included shouting in front of the children. She told housing officers she was afraid he might hit her if she confronted him.
The officers decided she was not homeless because her husband had never hit her or threatened to do so. They said the probability of domestic violence was low and concluded it was reasonable for her to stay in the matrimonial home.
Christina Blacklaws, Law Society council member for child care, said the ‘hugely significant and extremely welcome’ judgment would give victims of domestic violence greater access to justice in the context of family and housing law. She said: ‘Having the Supreme Court recognise the multi-faceted and complex nature of domestic violence is of enormous importance and should herald a return to better decision-making by local authorities.’
Blacklaws said the decision will also be important in relation to proposals in the green paper on legal aid, in which domestic violence is given an ‘inappropriately narrow’ definition. ‘This judgment gives us ammunition to challenge the government’s plans so we can ensure victims of domestic violence continue to receive expert legal advice and assistance,’ she said.
Elspeth Thomson, partner at Newcastle firm David Gray, said: ‘It is ironic the Supreme Court made this decision at a time when the government is seeking to limit the definition to mean not just violence, but circumstances where that violence is evidenced by court proceedings or criminal records.’
Comments
A cat sticking in its claws
The decision reinforces the view that women are victims or potential victims of men and must be protected from them. It implies that women are weak and can't stand up for themselves in a heated argument. This contradicts the view that women are equal to men. The decision may equally apply to men subject to a verbal tirade from a women but the decision is really about protecting women and the further encroachment of the state into the lives of private citizens. It is of great concern that the idea a heated argument in a marriage can become a way of big brother entering a private home to sort things out between a married couple having difficulties and will victims be encouraged by the state to dob their partners in? Many couples have experienced heated situations some of which have involved throwing objects at each other and even causing physical injury and they work it out between themselves and life goes on.If couples continue to argue in an way that makes life intolerable then the couple should perhaps go their separate ways after counselling. I question the intellectual level of those behind the above decison. A heated argument with no physical violence no matter how severe could NOT possibly be domestic violence as understood by anyone with common sense. How many men or women are going to be set up by their partners to commit verbal domestic violence so the police can be called and a criminal record issued by the kangaroo court or is the decision restricted to "verbal domestic violence" only applying in civil law? Either way the decision is a disgrace.
Welcome Family Law Decision
This is a welcome ruling from the Supreme Court whereby domestic violence now extends beyond physical contact to include other forms of violent conduct. Good to see the family laws of the UK giving such protection. Liverpool Family Lawyers & Solicitors
Dear Anonymous above, I can
Dear Anonymous above, I can only assume you are a man with the ridiculous response to this ruling.
I have lived under similar circumstances to the case. It is horrendous to be continuously shouted at.
Do we say that bullying in the playground doesn't exist because there is no physical attack?
I think not
I completely agree that
I completely agree that domestic violence branches out from just physical abuse. The tool that verbal abuse takes on a person is nothing to be ignored, and of course, it is up to the victim if they would like to do something about it. I believe that this new ruling will have a positive affect, and will let people know that any kind of domestic violence is not okay.