Second from the left: Professor Jane Monckton Smith, Sarah Butters JP, Catherine Feast, Chief Executive, Magistrates’ Association.
At the end of last year, I was invited to speak at a stalking conference on behalf of the Magistrates Association. I’d heard about the Alice Ruggles Trust and so was keen to go along to learn, as well as talk to delegates about sentencing in my capacity as Domestic Abuse and Stalking Link for the MA’s Adult Crime Committee. The presentation went well. However, it’s not my main memory of the event. Midway through the afternoon, delegate views were invited on experiences in court and there were some concerning examples of the treatment of victims. I’ll be honest, it was an uncomfortable listen, but as I drove home, I decided that the best way to react was to educate. That’s where the idea of the MA’s First Domestic Abuse and Stalking Conference was born. As I reflect on having brought 120 MA members from across the country together in Leeds at the beginning of June, I wanted to write on what I’ve taken away from organising and hosting this event.
We can learn from each other
Because of my work with Domestic Abuse and Stalking charities, I know all too well the frustration of victims about their court experiences. Some frustrations such as Sentencing Guidelines and the state of the courts are outside of our control as magistrates. Others are within our control to address but are perhaps a consequence of our own lived experiences. It is unfair for JPs to be expected to understand the complex reality of how DA and Stalking victims behave if they have no lived experience of this behaviour. And thankfully most of us don’t. The only way we learn is our training and events like this.
Our speakers gave us an exceptional insight into the victim journey and why often, victims behave in a way we don’t expect them to. We were warned not to interpret that as a victim not telling the truth.
Professor Cath White from the Institute of Addressing Strangulation walked us through the physical impact of strangulation on a victim and showed us a video of a controlled strangulation. It was shocking to watch but gave us all vital information. Very often there is no physical sign of a strangulation. External physical signs are only present in some strangulation events. No marks does not mean no offence. Strangulation as part of a DA offence does not trigger an immediate medical assessment. A victim only receives such assessment if it is part of a sexual offence. No medical report does not mean no offence. The evidence Cath shared, not all victims fight a strangulation. We must not take a lack of resistance as evidence that the attack didn’t happen. Some victims have no memory at all of their strangulation because they lose consciousness. A confused or incomplete victim memory does not mean the event did not happen.
And knowing all this matters. If we don’t understand why victims behave in the way they do, their behaviour can seem incomprehensible. It can seem unbelievable. Understanding it is vital to justice.
See the risk
Professor Jane Monckton Smith is one of the country’s leading experts on Coercive Control Behaviour (CCB) and Domestic Homicide so to have her at our first DA Conference was a real privilege. I met her just over a year ago when I interviewed her for an article in Magistrate magazine. I know she has been keen to deliver training to magistrates for some time, to make them aware of the risk created to victims by not seeing Coercive Control and not understanding the signposts in the behaviours brought to court. Jane accepted that CCB is often difficult to understand, especially if you’ve not experienced it. She invited us to see it as ‘a pattern of behaviour designed to trap someone in a relationship’ as opposed to dismissing it as a bad break up.
To identify CCB in a relationship, we need to think about rules and consequences. Language which indicates such rules and consequences can often be found in victim accounts and Victim Impact Statements but we need to look for it. We also need to look for patterns. CCB is a course of conduct crime. Looking at incidents in isolation will not give you the whole picture. It is important you step back and ask three key questions, according to Jane:
- Can you see a pattern of behaviour?
- Is the behaviour leading to the victim changing behaviours and routines?
- And is that behaviour leading to the victim being in fear? Are they scared?
That vital issue of victim behaviour was also addressed. We have a social expectation of how we believe someone should react in a given situation; why did they not run to the bathroom to escape the attack?; why did they continue to talk to the individual they’ve accused of abusing them?; why did they not push off their partner when he tried to strangle them? Jane introduced us to the idea of Chronic Fear and how that looks, unlike the more familiar Immediate Fear which leads to the fight, flight, freeze response. Chronic Fear builds up over time and is about managing the abuser because they understand the consequences of escalation. It doesn’t look how we expect it to look and we must remember that when questioning the accounts of victims.
Breaches are signposts
When a victim of Domestic Abuse or Stalking seeks help, they put themselves at a greater risk. Victims know this, which is why so often victims are non-compliant when it comes to Domestic Violence Protection Order applications; these are instigated by the police and don’t need victim co-operation. However, when they are granted – very often for the victim’s own protection – they have the unintended consequence of escalating the risk for the victim. It’s why victims very often withdraw their compliance. It’s also why the way we deal with breaches is so important.
I met Clive Ruggles last year. His journey to speaking at events like ours is truly awful. His daughter Alice was stalked by a former partner who went on to kill her. Clive spoke about the experiences of stalking victims who can see their risk escalate dynamically when breaches are not dealt with effectively by the courts. He encouraged us to see the mere fact of the Breach as an escalation without looking at the behaviour within the Breach. Often that behaviour will look innocuous; the sending of a brief text, a gift left on a doorstep, a message left on social media. However, we were invited to see these Breaches as escalations which need acting on because if they aren’t, you leave the victim at greater risk than they were before the protection order was put in place.
THE STANDING OVATION
Claire Throssell is a compelling speaker with a difficult message for those of us who work in the Family Court. Her two boys – 12-year-old Jack and Paul who was 9 – were killed by her ex partner on a contact visit which she had opposed. She spoke of her fight for the voice of the child to be heard in proceedings and her campaign for those who abuse to have the automatic right to see their children removed. Whilst other speakers had slides and videos to assist our learning, Claire came along with 2 pictures. The first was of her two boys in the months before they were killed, dressed in their school uniforms with their best smiles on display. The second was one of her son, bandaged from head to foot as a result of the burns he had sustained at the hands of his father. He died not long after the photo was taken.
I’ll never forget Claire telling the room that she also died the day she lost her boys. Now, she told us, she simply exists. It’s hard to see such raw emotion in front of you but I think delegates agreed, it is so important to hear what happens when risk isn’t identified. As she brought her session to a close, the entire room took to their feet to let Claire know that her decision to share her boys with us was heard. I have no doubt that every Family Justice at conference will have her loss in their minds when they next go into court.
I’M DELIGHTED IT WAS THE FIRST MA DOMESTIC ABUSE AND STALKING CONFERENCE. IT MUST NOT BE THE LAST
As the end of the day approached, I was asked by a number of delegates and speakers – would I do it again? Given my exhaustion, I responded with a fairly firm ‘no’. But a little like childbirth, the painful planning memories are subsiding, anaesthetised by emails from delegates sharing their gratitude that the event took place. I chose all the speakers because they had told me they wanted to speak directly to magistrates and felt frustrated with outcomes in our courts. All have contacted me to say they were impressed with the engagement in the room, the response of the delegates and the desire to learn. I wasn’t surprised by the response they received. I know most magistrates are sponges; keen to learn more to make sure they do the best job they can in the courts they sit.
On Saturday 6 June we reached 120 of our number. Every person in that room left more informed than when they came in. It’s a start. I asked everyone who came to go back to their courts and to talk to their colleagues about what they had seen and heard and I know that is being done.
The one communication which has stuck with me is from a local delegate who said she wishes all magistrates could sit through the day we put on. So that’s the aim. To reflect on the feedback, regroup with colleagues at HQ and explore putting on the event again in another part of the country.
