Domestic Abuse

However impartial our judges, and my best friend is a judge, so I do how careful they are to be impartial but victim impact statements can work at many levels and a judge can be affected by one, even if they are concientuously careful to be impartial.

Quite agree mice.

Yes, Butty. I hold no brief for private education, but this particular Sheriff is so untypical of the judiciary as a whole that his actions here cannot be held to represent the rest.

I would just like to give a bit of a hands-up to white, privately educated men. They seem to take a bit of a bashing on GN (and some, deservedly) but having been married to one for 38 years I can only say that some are full of kindness, insight, patience, love and intelligence. Boarded at 7 through to 18 takes some doing - and coming out of that well can only be admired.

Just redressing a little balance ........

Judges are mainly white, privately-educated, men.......'nuff said.

NO! NO! NO!

Like the piece on the side - "Great xmas toys ideas". Just bye the bye.

It's almost as though that oily looking judge is saying, "You don't really want him to go to prison, do you? You know you depend upon him for all your life needs".

She should have said "Yes. I do!" straight away. Sod having four weeks to make her mind up.

Why do we train and eventually, qaulify judges if they are not going to do the job?

Is it even legal for a lay person to sentence a criminal?

Only in Scotland (would it happen).

If you let the victim decide the sentence then vengeance may come into play. The person who decides the punishment must remain impartial.

FB, decisions about sentencing are made objectively and impartially, but VI statements were introduced to balance the defence closing speech.

As I said previously, if the defendant enters a Guilty plea, it is likely that the CPS will only have the briefest of facts supplied from his office. S(he) will have no knowledge of the case, whereas the defendant's counsel will do their job by presenting their client's case in the best possible way.

The V I statement simply balances the information available to the Court, which will, as I said previously, be bound by the Sentencing Guidelines.

I always worry about victim impact statements because, as discussed, earlier in the thread, decisions about sentencing are meant tp be made objectively and impartially.

If there are two cases based on similar evidence it is unjust to give one defendant a heavier sentence than another because in one case the victim was badly affected by the crime and the other victim was more mentally robust and less affected, unless, of course, the defendant committed the crime because they knew the victims mental fragility.

I agree with all the above posts. An emphatic NO.

Kitty, all I can say is thank heavens for Women's Aid on those occasions. And indeed there are continuing difficulties with all DV cases. But there are encouraging initiatives such as dedicated DV courts and a growing awareness of the dynamics of these crimes.

I've just looked at your profile and see you are a volunteer for the Witness service. Respect.

As we are all aware, there is often difficulty in court with victim/witnesses not wanting to give evidence 'because he/she said they were sorry and they have promised it won't happen again'. The victim in such cases is often so browbeaten by the the offender that they would say, in the event of a guilty verdict, that he/she should not go to prison. Also, even when the victim is intent on bringing a case to fruition they are reluctant to be responsible for sending the other parent of their children to prison.

In the Magistrate's Courts it is still rare for someone to have made a Victim Impact Statement and it is not unknown for the victim to do one after a guilty verdict with no help from anyone but the PC involved and, maybe, Women's Aid or the like!

Unlike a robbery or evan a 'stranger rape', a case involving DA is never 'impersonal' and the legal system as it stands can often further victimise the victim. It is invidious that, having been beaten to a pulp by this man she, and the children, have to remain financially dependent upon him - leaving them still in his power and at his mercy if he pays up or not as the mood takes him. If he tells the Benefits Agency that he is paying x amount per month and shows them the standing order to prove it, he can cancel that at any time, the onus then being on the woman to PROVE that she has not received the agreed amount and WITH NO ENTITLEMENT TO STATE BENEFITS, for herself or the children in the meantime. The kind of 'man' who has been physically violent to his partner is also the kind who will, given the opportunity, take pleasure or revenge from playing a cat and mouse game over money and child access for years on end.

On the other hand it would not fair or just if a man (or a well off woman) who is not guilty of any crime is forced to pay on-going maintenance while a proven criminal is absolved of that responsibility, for the protection of the victim, and we, the tax payers, have to pick up the tab. It would require the wisdom of Soloman to resolve these disputes - something this Judge obviously lacks.

Just a comment about Victim Impact statements. If a defendant enters a Guity plea, only the brief facts are heard in court. The evidence isn't cross examined and the bench are unlikely to know exactly what the effects of the offence were.

The impact statement, made with the help of a lawyer, enables a victim to tell their side of the story and thus provide a bigger picture for sentencers, who will in any case, be bound by the Sentencing Guidelines.

That is just disgraceful and wantonly stupid. He should be unfrocked or debarred or whatever you do to stupid, incompetent judges who cause harm. He has absolutely no concept of what it is like to be the victim of domestic abuse and such a judgement make the victim a victim of the judicial system as well.

Quite disgraceful. This was a serious assault, a level 1 offence had it been in England - Scottish law may be different - and a custodial sentence is the only appropriate disposal.

This goes against every principle of the law as an offence isn't just against an individual but against society, and it's society, in the shape of the criminal justice system which should decide the sentence.

To put the onus on the victim is to punish her twice; can you imagine what the consequences will be for her now, both from him and and his associates.

As for the patronising nonsense about her only source of income, I cannot imagine what is going through the head of a Sherrif who thinks that money is more important than a just disposal.

Posts crossed, butty.

You've hit on exactly what the author of the article is concerned about, gracesmum – the importance of judicial objectiveness. Problems associated with victim statements in court are also mentioned. The writer argues that the victim's ability to break the cycle of abuse is actually made harder by what the judge has done, in this case.

No, in a nutshell. The columnist's comment that the judge showed a complete lack of understanding of the psychology of domestic abuse says it all.

Talk about passing the buck. Strewth!

Shouldn't decisions re sentencing be the responsibility of the judiciary? I admit I haven't read the article so possibly hat/ through/ talking (rearrange these words to make a well-known saying) but I believe in the impersonal nature of justice - allowing neither revenge nor leniency on the part of the victim in the sentence handed down. Another reason why I don't like the idea of victim statements in court.