In a bid to tackle domestic violence, the Ministry Of Justice has now removed the time limit on evidence of abuse, allowing alleged victims the opportunity to come forward with evidence of harm that is more than five years old.
Lifting this restriction should mean that more people will be able to access legal aid for domestic violence cases.
The Ministry of Justice has also agreed to increase the currently narrow set of documents allowed to show evidence of harm, which is also seen to be another barrier to accessing justice, and protection from domestic violence.
Justice Secretary Liz Truss made the announcement after Prime Minister Theresa May promised to introduce a new law to help increase prosecutions for Domestic Violence.
What do you think?
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
This is a positive measure, long overdue, but one that is to be recommended.
LikeLike
It is good in theory. but many men are also victims of domestic abuse and if a man dare defend himself in the US, then he suddenly becomes the abuser. Again, law has to be unbiased to be any good or be credible. I don’t know the details in the UK but both sexes need to be protected, not just one, as if the other did not even exist. All laws are so biased now. We know that women was suffered under men. Some men abused their position and status, But if returning evil for evil is the only answer, then its really a matter who manipulated the laws. That is not justice. If one is no better than the other, then there is no moral high-ground. Anything goes. Law is suppose to seek equity and fairness, not promote bias and abuse of one or the other. Some one ought to explain that to UK politicians. And that goes for the USA, too.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
This is yet another example of the way in which the UK Government runs scared of the women’s lobby. The number of cases where the 5 year time limit caused a problem would be tiny. The percentage of cases where such ‘hard’ evidence is relied upon to claim Legal Aid is microscopic. Currently Non Mols and GP letters make up more than 50% of successful applications for Legal Aid.
The big change will be the MoJ’s decision to ‘increase the currently narrow set of documents allowed to show evidence of harm,’ These narrow criteria include the ‘Bethlehem sanction’ – a letter from a Refuge confirming that they didnt have room for you a letter from Social Services confirming that you are ‘at risk’ of DV or a referral from a medical practitioner including a Health Visitor simply referring someone to a DV support service. If the medic can’t even follow the simple template letter insisted upon by the Legal Aid Agency the DV support organisation can produce the ‘evidence’ anyway confirming that they’ve had a referral.
I raised all these points with Sir Oliver Heald QC MP in a face to face meeting in Westminster in January. He reassured me that the ‘evidence gateway’ was very robust. I then told him that our charity had decided to become a Specialist DV support service and that we were actively supporting men to obtain the GP referral to a DV support service as proof of eligibility. The meeting didn’t last long after that. Pre LASPO 40% of funding went to men. Post LASPO that is now 15%. Presumably the changes proposed appear to suggest that a DV organisation simply confirming that someone is a victim of abuse will be sufficient. We look forward to producing such letters by the thousand as every man who approaches us for support will be a victim of DV through the emotional and psychological abuse he is enduring as a result of being prevented from child contact.
If bringing back Legal Aid is the answer we have asked the wrong question. However, it’s the Government who make the rules – we will simply follow them. The Law Society Gazette headline summed things up extremely accurately ”Domestic violence evidence requirement removed’ – After all why should women have to endure the appalling indignity of having to provide evidence. They don’t need to in the Court itself so why should they when applying for public funding to prevent a child from a relationship with their father?
LikeLike
while courts and solicitors earning money from the system is being vastly cut back could this be just a clever way of opening the door to a new line of business.
its the same story with the criminal courts and the prison system.
Judges are just not doing the numbers and weighing up the pros and cons when considering custodial sentences.
so as a result we have thousands of people being put behind bars for years at the expense of the tax payer to the tune of approx £40k per year per prisoner when its just not in the public interest when other more sensible options are available. thousands of these prisoners are simply not violent or a danger to the public so why are they in prison costing £40k per year. thats £1 million pounds for every 25 prisoners. its just ludicrous.
what we need is judges who can make not just a sensible decision but also an economic one.
Many judges are simply one or the other, out of touch with reality or deliberately serving a money making prison system and its time for change.
LikeLike