Are We No Onger Innocent Unti Proven Guilty?

[youngmafbog]

"Courts and police would be given extra powers to ensure bullies stay away from partners and family members they are accused of tormenting, even if there is not enough evidence to charge them."

Now dont get me wrong I am totally against domestic abuse nd I get the removal from the home when kids are about but this seems to be a real and dangerous move to change from innocent until proven guilty to your guilty whatever because we say so. The Stasi would be proud.

Surely all this will also be open to abuse?

[youngmafbog]

*longer


and


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5475591/Men-accused-beating-partners-banned-drinking-alcohol.html

[Mamyalynne]

It's a difficult one isn't it?

There is so much secrecy in this form of violence and abuse that hard evidence is not always easy to come by - is this a good step?

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that.

[woofgang]

I wonder who will judge whether there is enough evidence to enact the court order (or whatever it is)? maybe it would be good in cases where the alleged abused person makes a complaint and then denies the abuse? Like saying to two children "I don't care who started it, just stay out of each others' way"

[Barmaid]

I do not believe that it is going down the slippery slope of changing the presumption of innocence. These are not penal measures but preventative. Indeed, some powers already exist for a Mags Court to impose Restraining Orders on people despite the fact that there has been no conviction.

I do not believe that it will necessarily be abused - the fact is domestic abuse (which includes the FULL range of abuse from emotional, to physical to sexual to economical) is one of the most difficult things to proceed with since very often the victim withdraws the complaint for a number of reasons.

[Jackdaw33]

I agree with barmaid. It's just like imposing bail conditions even though the accused has not yet been found guilty.

[Buenchico]

The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' has NEVER applied in civil courts (and it's civil law that applies where 'restriction orders', 'prohibition orders', etc are applied). Civil courts are obliged to work only 'on the balance of probabilities'.

[dannyk13]

//even if there is not enough evidence to charge them//
e.g. Wife with broken nose and two black eyes with no independent witness.

[Barmaid]

If we are going to be really picky, it is both a criminal and civil jurisdiction - particularly under PHA 1997. The standard of proof on an RO after aquittal is on the balance of probabilities, but in reality there are few aquittal RO's granted unless the Defence agree. And in reality the Court only needs to be satisfied that an RO will prevent further harassment. Consequently, there is very often no evidence offered by the Crown. The factual basis will nearly always be agreed.

Fair point, Chris, but this should be seen as a positive step to protect victims of DA rather than something that lawyers can have an esoteric argument about as to the standard and burden of proof.

[Barmaid]

Tbh Danny a woman with a broken nose and 2 black eyes is likely to result a charge - irrespective of witnesses. As long as the victim gives a statement.

I see this as aimed at the more insidious and less noticeable abuse - the stuff that is far more difficult to prove such as controlling and coercive behaviour etc

[Peter Pedant]

// is one of the most difficult things to proceed with since very often the victim withdraws the complaint for a number of reasons.// Barmaid - my fave!

as we well know from these threads if you read them

Give em hell barmaid -

we already have PINs - sort of level 0 ASBOs - where the word of the complainer who is 'being harassed' is taken at par. - which having been subject to the process myself
I have to say doesnt work THAT badly.....

( my one was lying froo her teeth and didnt get the PIN, second time round)

[Landlord frequently get PINs when they are chucking their awful non-paying tenants out. You get put to the hop of the rehousing list if you can show your landlord is being funny wiv ya. Landlord is cock-a-hoop as it is now the council's turn to have colossal arrrears]

[Peter Pedant]

lying froo her teef.
sozza - dubbl sozza
no wonder no one can understand my posts.

[dannyk13]

Point taken BM.I was rather exaggerating a bit.

[Peter Pedant]

nothing wrong with exaggeration
my world is painted in vivid primary colours...

[Barmaid]

Sorry Danny, I didnt mean to come across as ascerbic. This is a cause dear to my heart having nursed someone very close to me through a quite hideous situation.

[Quizmonster]

This is a 'rich' question coming from you, Youngmafbog! I say that in light of the fact that there is not and never has been a shred of evidence that Jeremy Corbyn was ever an agent of or received payment from Czech spies. Yet YOU and other ABers of a similar misguided viewpoint are still harping on about (quote) "Agent COB" and so forth.
DO you or DO YOU NOT value the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' or do you simply decide on a case by case basis which side of the fence you are on?
(* My apologies to the rest of you on the thread for taking this opportunity to get the current questioner to consider his position.)

[dannyk13]

QM, have you posted on the wrong thread?

[Quizmonster]

No, Danny, I haven't. The title of this thread from Youngmafbog is, "Are we no longer innocent until proven guilty." On other AB threads, the same poster has made it plain - to me - that he cares not a hoot for that concept! Accordingly, I am asking him whether he just decides what his viewpoint on the matter actually is on a whim.

[dannyk13]

Fair nuff.

[gulliver1]

Are you an expert on domestic abuse YMB, or just an expert on A/B abuse?

[Old_Geezer]

It's containing a risky situation rather than assigning guilt.
Not nice for an innocent treated as if guilty though.