Of course the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act must be repealed (see comment, [2008] Gazette, 3 April, 8).


As the act received royal assent in November 2003, many family law practitioners had dared to hope that, after more than three years of successive postponements, its implementation would be delayed indefinitely.



It must have become blindingly obvious to its instigator, [former solicitor general] Harriet Harman, that it was misconceived, unnecessary, and would significantly weaken the courts' ability to protect victims and deal effectively with perpetrators. In March last year we were told implementation would not be until November, so it came as a shock when the act, in all its madness and mayhem, was unleashed on the courts in July instead.



The harm is obvious and it is unclear what good the act can do for victims. It seems to have been good for Ms Harman herself, as the act's implementation in the summer coincided with the Labour Party deputy leadership election. By giving it pride of place in her CV, Harman could present herself as saviour of the weak and scourge of the wicked just in time to swing the vote.



Women's domestic violence groups, the police, media and public at large have always been largely ignorant of the effective protection provided by injunctions under the former civil law and the speedy and cost-effective way breach could be prosecuted.



Hastily drafted, populist bills may pass through Parliament easily and gain brief tabloid press approval, but the unintended consequences of this ill-researched act will be devastating for women and children needing protection from abuse.



Janet Williams, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire