Path: mit!news
From:
[email protected]
Newsgroups: mit.apsintl
Subject: ecn/uk:LAW ON PROVOCATION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:33:00 MET
Sender:
[email protected]
Organization: INFO - BOX - BERLIN, West Germany
THE LAW ON PROVOCATION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Provocation
Campaigns to force the legal system to take domestic
violence seriously have started to take effect. Sara Thornton will have
been in prison for three years next February, though the powers that be
have had enough evidence to free her for some time. It isn't surprising
that our barbaric, authoritarian 'justice' system has had few problems
convicting women to life imprisonment when they kill a violent husband.
Nor is it unusual for it to be stubborn when it's obvious injustices are
being exposed, just like it's doing now, it delays, putting a go-slow on
proceedings, halting at technicalities, fully aware of the cruelty it is
inflicting on the women in prison.
Women who've kill ed men through
provocation have only just started to get any kind of recognition from a
system that none of us chose but we're still all forced to obey. The
criminal justice system has recently reluctantly released three women
whowere convicted for killing violent men. They are Kiranjit Ahluwahlia,
Amelia Rossiter, and Janet Gardner. But none of them were released under
the law of provocation which was the most relevant law in existence for
their cases.
This law wa s branded bu a lawyer, Lord devlin, in 1947
who wanted to convict a woman known as Duffy, for killing her violent
husband. He insisted that to kill under provocation meant to kill as an
immediate reaction to something with a sudden and temporary loss of
control. The court accepted his interpretation, rejected Duffy's defence
and sentenced her to death. In our ludicrous system, that biased
interpretation of provocation has held. No one voted on it, debated it
or asked our opinion on it. It was accepted into the legal system and
has been used to deny women in similar cases a right to react to
domestic violence. But it has been used to free men who have used it to
explain away killing in a pub brawl. It has also been used to excuse a
man murdering a women because she taunted him with another lover. It was
used by a man, Bisla, who strangled his wife last year to get her to
shut up because she had been 'nagging' him for a couple of hours.
This
last judgement showed us clearly how the system accepted that a woman
could provoke a man to kill her just by nagging him. . .but a man could
not have provoked a woman to kill him after spending years battering
her. It was obvious then that it wasn't just the interpretation of the
law of provocation that had to be challenged. It was the macho system
that saw domestic violence as inevitable (though illegal), but nagging
as 'intolerable'. And, perversely, when the courst did take into account
the violence a woman had suffred, it ws used as another nail in her
coffin by providing her with a motive for intentionally killing her
abuser.
Women are treated outrageously differently to men in the
system. Men do not need to provide any more evidence than their word to
explain how they had been provoked bu the nagging or taunting of the
women they killed. The CPS, which prosecutes for the state, had proof
that Bisla had battered Abnash throughout their marriage and tht he had
wanted to sign away her property by forging her signature. The CPS
didn't use it to show his motive for killing her. Instead it charged
Bisla with manslaughter, like it had so manymen before him, under the
grounds of provocation. . .and that means there was no trial, no jury.
Bisla pleaded guilty and his judge (who could have imprisoned him for
life), said he was sympathetic to a 'nagged man' and would let him walk
free.
The tragedy is, it is out of our hands. We have no rights to
force the CPS to take a stronger stand. We have no rights to get a
proper sentence for this man's crime. We do not choose the CPS or the
judge, just as we don't choose the system. They are imposed on use. As
before, the recent case of Roohanee Haroon, who was battered with a
sledgehammer and her eyes gouged out with a kitchen knife, the CPS can
decide how they present the case. It is out of her hands. She is totally
blind; she is the victim of the crime, but for the CPS she is just a
'witness' and had no decision in who will make a case against her abuser
or how they will do it. She has not say in how severe the sentence the
judge will impose should be. If her abuser pleads guilty, there is no
trial, no jury.
How hopeful can we be when the average sentence for
rape is eighteen months and indecent assault, which covers a multitude
of gross acts, usually gets a man a fine less than if he was caught
without a TV licence?
Carol Peter s was in hospital for a week with the
injuries inflicted by her violent husband before she finally killed him.
He had a long history of violence towards her and her children. There
was so much evidence to show she'd acted in self-defence, nevermind
provocation, but she is in prison for murder preparing for an
appeal.
Caroline Griffiths and her two children left her violent
husband. Two days after the r formal separation he stabbed her to death.
He pleaded provocation, saying that Caroline was having an affair and
had goaded him about it. The CPS didn't charge him with murder and
didn't bring up in court his history of violence against her. The judge
gave him four years.
LUcy Kellett 's husband stabbed her to death as
she was waiting for the removal van to move herself and her things. The
CPS didn't charge him with murder and he pleaded diminished
responsibility on the grounds that he had just heard that morning that
she was divorcing him. The judge gave him a suspended sentence and he
walked away free.
Emma Humphries used to work as a prostitute when she
was very young. She lived with a man who took her money, nailed the
windows down to stop her getting away, beat her regularly, raped her
regularly: she was 17. She killed him in terror one day and was
convicted of murder. As a juvenile they don't have to give her a release
date. The judge had recommended five years, but the Home Office can
override that recommendation or even just completely forget she exists
in the system. Now Emma is 24 and fighting to overturn the judgement and
expose how her evidence was quashed.
One of the things women like
these all have in common are their experience of shit lawyers ,
according to Julie. Usually women sho've been in this situation are
arrested and will not know who to go to for legal help. They take the
duty solicitor they've been given by the police and they stick with
them. "These lawyers are usually inexperienced, uncaring and
judgemental. All the women we've come into contact with have terrible,
terrible counsel. They won't consult with campaigners, they won't try
political defences. They usually go for diminished responsibility 'cos a
woman has to be mad to fight back against something. This is a massive
problem. All we can do is get a better lawyer on appeal, but then it's
all far harder: they've got a slimmer chance on appeal than the original
trial. They're also inside with a life sentence, demoralised, worried
about losing their children, they've lost their house."
And getting
more women judges will not remedy the se atrocities. as Julie explained,
in this climate we would potentially get Margaret Thatchers: "There is
not way whatsoever to guarantee that women coming from that social
background will not be absolute abominations". The best we could hope
for is that they may feel more sympathy for women if they've had similar
experiences. Let's face it, a male judge is never going to feel the real
horror of domestic violence.
But Justice For Women does believe things
are getting better . During the time when domestic violence wasn't
against the law, it was worse for women, likewise with rape in marriage.
Political campaigning along with law reform has meant people are aware
there's a massive fightback by women. "It shows that it's not the odd
woman that's being battered, it's widespread. If the law were to change
and there was no political pressure to change people's situation it
wouldn't change anything."
The heavy campaigning to free Sara, Amelia,
Janet and Kiranjit forced the judge who heard Kiranjit's appeal to
accept that provocation could be a slow burn, as well as a sudden and
temporary loss of control. He may have released her on grounds of
diminished responsibility, but people will remember her case as the one
of the provoked woman. From Sara Thornton's three week hunger strike in
August 1991 to Janet Gardner's release a few weeks ago, women have
worked for and won a huge victory which has forced a change in how
everyone in the system can look on domestic violence.
Solicitors have
not longer got the right to ignore how women are provoked into killing
violent men and judges cannot direct juries to make a judgement without
referring to the history of battery.
Five years ago, women who'd been
battered and killed their violent husbands weren't an issue; these
women's cases wouldn't have been noticed. Women already in prison and
women in the future are morea aware they can contact groups like Justice
For Women, Southall Black Sisters and Women's Aid for help. We've all
made sure that men can't just shove a woman away for life
anymore.
Justice For Women can be contacted on 081 340 3699.
