Wiltshire magistrates grant 10 more domestic violence protection orders (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

A DVPN sounds like it flies in the face of article 6 of the Human Rights Act: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing...". A DVPN is surely an infringement of civil rights made worse by it being able to be granted where there "may not be enough evidence to charge the perpetrator with a criminal offence"; So perhaps the word 'perptrator' doesn't apply! The police should not be able to score points for such shoddy efforts.

_Manners_ wrote:
A DVPN sounds like it flies in the face of article 6 of the Human Rights Act: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing...". A DVPN is surely an infringement of civil rights made worse by it being able to be granted where there "may not be enough evidence to charge the perpetrator with a criminal offence"; So perhaps the word 'perptrator' doesn't apply! The police should not be able to score points for such shoddy efforts.

This is absoflippinlutely not about point scoring - it's about respite for battered partners!!!
Too late - the following day - when one of them is found dead or beaten to a pulp. Let's not go back to the bad old days of "Come on - he/she loves him/her really - they didn't really mean it - let them sort it out themselves".
The civil rights of one can't be used to hide behind simply to avoid the consequences of having abused the civil rights of another.
Please see articles 3 and 5 - how can you use ANY article to countermand another?

Manners, many years ago my ex would assault me,including being kicked in the stomach causing a miscarriage and there was not so many things to help and protect us then. Also there are men that are hit by their partners as well and it is harder for them to ask for help. Notscot hit the nail on the head, better to be over the top than have someone killed, also often protecting the kids safety if any are involved. Perhaps you should spend some time with abused and tortured partners and see how their lives are affected to understand why we need these orders. If we can save one life it is worth it.

Manners you are showing your ignorance of the process. The person being issued the DVPN is informed of the court date and is able to attend with a solicitor to put forward their case. There is no breach of article 6 (right to a fair trial). If you don't know what you're talking about do a quick search on Google and you will get the information you need to make a intelligent and coherent post.

The DVPN is essentially an emergency non molestation order.

To respond to the above;

notscot:

1. I did not mean to suggest that this was wholly about point scoring, only that from the police's perspective this may be the case. The police are not judged on their social conscience or ability to act fairly, they are judged on successful convictions. In this case they are deemed to have been effective in issuing a DVPN. If police careers are enhanced by successfully issuing a DVPN and yet they can apply less rigorous investigation then it erodes civil liberties.

2. I agree that you can't argue the civil rights of one party over another. However, enforcing articles 3 or 5 needs evidence. If there is evidence of a breach of article 6 in relation to one party but "not enough evidence" (to quote the article) in relation to articles 3, 5 and another party then the bottom line is just a breach of article 6.

Noone would argue against the need for protection for a battered partner. But before there's any evidence you can't say they are a battered partner. They may be someone contriving to take their children to a new mistress/boyfriend, someone looking to leverage their financial case in a divorce or someone with one of a dozen other motives.

You simply should not remove people's liberty where there is no evidence. I would hope that that's fundamental. The police need to clear a very low hurdle, in terms of evidence, to arrest someone which would remove the suspect from the house. If they can't do that then the process to issue a DVPN must be subjective nonsense; if they can do that then I see no reason to have a DVPN instead.

redrum:

I don't underestimate what life must be like in an abusive relationship. I would want abused partners to receieve compassionate and practical support and for perpetrators to be punished. I also agree with notscot that, historically, action by the police fell a long way short of achieving this. I don't think, though, that it is "better to be over the top" where the rights of the innocent are waived as a result.

You mention protecting children and that works both ways: How would you explain to older children that they didn't see their father growing up because their mother had manipulated evidence against him in a family court as the DVPN, without its investigative rigour, may allow? That's not unfeasibily a consequence; since the Baby P case CAFCASS will be ultra cautious: look at the big reported increase in children moved into care.

All reports and justifications for DVPNs I have seen emphasise the protection they afford vulnerable abused partners. None of the reports claim how the integrity of justice is maintained in their application. When the order can benefit the police doing sloppy work or an unscupulous partner with other motives, I see this as unacceptable.


€d:

The suspect is prohibited from entering their own home prior to any trial and not as part of any arrest process. This goes against article 6. I'd also mention that the churlishly derogatory elements of your post don't assist anyone.