Claire's Law

For those who haven't heard of it, Claire's Law is the popular name for a modern law that allows police to tell potential victims of domestic violence about their partner's previous convictions.

I do not understand the purpose of this law.  I get that it is supposed to forewarn women who might be the victim of domestic violence (or where their children might be at risk of sexual offences from a new partner) but I just can't see how this is a useful law.

To receive a disclosure the woman must go to the police and apply for the information.  The police then assess the request and decide whether it is appropriate to make a disclosure.

What strikes me about this is that to trigger somebody to go to the police the partner would have to be displaying some unusual behaviour; something that makes the new partner uncomfortable or suspicious.  If somebody is making you uncomfortable then why would you want to stay with them?

We, by which I mean a cultural or national we, seem to be slipping into a world where we distrust our own instincts and the evidence of our own eyes and experience.  We seem to rely more and more on others to take responsibility for us and guide us in our decisions.  I really do think that people need to trust themselves more.  Trust their instincts.  Trust the evidence of their own eyes.  If somebody makes you so uncomfortable that you need the police to officially endorse your relationship then it's not the right relationship for you.

Comments

  1. Anonymous27 April 2013 at 16:37

    Spot on. I'm currently reading Gavin De Becker's "The Gift of Fear" which encourages tapping into and responding to the subtle warning signs of danger. Recommended read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous28 April 2013 at 04:41

    Agreed - some of the laws now being threatened or enacted are scary. Britain is no longer recognisable as a relatively free and fair society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous16 June 2013 at 23:32

    Abusers can convince you that it was a one off and blame it on the alcohol. They might even put friends and family reassure you that it was out of character. People do not take DV as seriously as they supposed to. That new law can be a life savior. I don't agree that someone has to go through the police to check it. I think it should be public record.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous27 November 2013 at 09:31

    After being in an abusive relationship I would probably use it not because of any current fears as like what some comments state if I was to be made uncomfortable in would just leave. But this could help my own insecurities.new relationship instinct tells me I've got nothing to be concerned over. But I see others in similar situation following my trail of thought.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>