Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper assesses the design and use of protection orders for domestic violence in England and Wales. It draws on data from 400 police classified domestic violence incidents and 65 interviews with victims/survivors, as well as new analysis of government justice data from England and Wales, to address a gap in literature on protection orders. The paper identifies an increasing civil-criminal ‘hybridisation’ of protection orders in England and Wales, and argues that a dual regime has developed, with orders issued by police and/or in criminal proceedings increasingly privileged (and enforced) over victim-led civil orders. Whilst protection orders are being used – as intended – flexibly to protect domestic violence victims, the way they are applied in practice risks downgrading domestic violence in criminal justice terms. The conclusions are especially timely in light of current Government proposals to rationalise protection orders by introducing a single overarching Domestic Abuse Protection Order in England and Wales.
Highlights
In England and Wales, civil orders to protect victims of domestic violence have been in use since 1976
Analysis of police cases and victim interviews for the project, combined with new secondary analysis of Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) data, shows that the main protection orders for domestic violence are restraining orders (RO) and nonmolestation orders (NMO), which continue to be in demand in England and Wales
The enforcement of orders issued in criminal and civil proceedings are diverging, with some evidence that ROs are being privileged over NMOs in terms of criminal justice enforcement
Summary
In England and Wales, civil orders to protect victims of domestic violence have been in use since 1976. There are six main behavioural protection orders for interpersonal and family violence currently in use in England and Wales: restraining orders (RO), nonmolestation orders (NMO), occupation orders (OO), Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPO), Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPO) and Female Genital Mutilation Protection Orders (FGMPO) These orders are explained in more detail in the sections which follow. The Government argued that this extension was necessary because there were cases in which there had been ‘clear evidence’ during proceedings that a victim needed protection, but insufficient evidence to convict (Hansard (HL) col GC, 2 February 2004) Evaluations of this widening of circumstances in which ROs could be issued suggested that professionals saw the extension of ROs as the measure in the 2004 Act which would potentially have the biggest impact on victim safety (Hester et al 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
