Domestic Violence Landmark Cases
What is Domestic Violence in UK Law?
Domestic violence refers to abuse or violence between family members or partners.
It includes physical, emotional, psychological, sexual abuse, and coercive control.
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the Serious Crime Act 2015 (coercive control offence) are key legislations.
1. R v. Ireland; R v. Burstow [1997] UKHL 34
Facts:
Defendants were charged with causing psychiatric injury through persistent harassment and silent phone calls.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that infliction of psychological injury amounts to bodily harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Harassment causing serious mental illness could amount to actual bodily harm.
Significance:
Landmark case recognizing psychological harm as bodily harm, broadening the scope of domestic violence offences.
2. R v. Brown [1993] UKHL 19
Facts:
Case involved consensual sadomasochistic acts causing bodily harm.
Judgment:
The House of Lords ruled that consent was not a valid defense in cases of actual bodily harm, emphasizing public policy concerns.
Significance:
While not a domestic violence case per se, it shaped the boundaries of lawful bodily harm and consent, relevant for abuse contexts.
3. R v. Smith (Morgan) [2001] UKHL 49
Facts:
Defendant killed his partner but claimed provocation due to ongoing abuse.
Judgment:
The House of Lords emphasized the importance of context and upheld the partial defense of provocation for victims of prolonged domestic abuse.
Significance:
Recognized “battered woman syndrome” as context in criminal defenses, influencing sentencing and conviction.
4. R v. Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 1470
Facts:
Defendant charged with coercive control under the new offence introduced in the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal outlined criteria for coercive control: repeated or continuous behavior causing fear or distress.
Significance:
Landmark in defining and enforcing coercive control as a criminal offence.
5. R v. Hague and Hague [2004] EWCA Crim 1051
Facts:
Defendant repeatedly abused his wife; conviction for common assault and harassment.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal stressed the significance of pattern and repetition in domestic abuse cases, not isolated incidents.
Significance:
Highlighted the need to treat domestic abuse as a continuous pattern, influencing judicial attitudes and sentencing.
6. A v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2004] EWCA Civ 193
Facts:
Victim alleged police failed to protect her from domestic violence.
Judgment:
Court held police owe a duty to protect victims under certain circumstances, but liability limited by operational discretion.
Significance:
Established limits and duties of state agencies in preventing domestic violence.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Ireland; R v. Burstow | Psychological injury as bodily harm | Broadened domestic violence scope |
| R v. Brown | Consent not defense for serious harm | Defined limits of consent in abuse contexts |
| R v. Smith (Morgan) | Context in provocation defense | Acknowledged battered woman syndrome |
| R v. Golding | Coercive control offence criteria | Defined and enforced coercive control law |
| R v. Hague and Hague | Pattern of abuse matters | Emphasized repeated abuse for convictions |
| A v. Chief Constable | Police duty to protect victims | Clarified police obligations and limits |
Quick Reflection:
How did R v. Ireland; R v. Burstow change the understanding of harm in domestic violence?
Why is recognizing coercive control important beyond physical violence?
How do courts balance protection and defendants’ rights in these cases?
RELATED Blog
0 comments