Violence in family 1 & 2 Flashcards

Question

what happened in the johnson case?

Answer 1

Johnson v Walton [1990] | Semi-naked photos of girlfriend sent to the press-in press was molestation

Answer 2

P v D and Others [2014] – limits on use of social media husband was trying to molest people fake accoutns and then children ex wife and molest over itnere, he had non molest order which meant that he could nto contact wife children by social media and that he was not to hack into accounts

Answer 3

Spencer v Camacho [1984] – riffling through partner’s handbag

Answer 4

relevant child s 62(2) - those ‘associated’ with the perpetrator s. 62(3)- long list

Answer 5

Includes: (a) current or former spouses/civil partners (b) cohabitants or former cohabitants (c) they live or have lived in the same household, otherwise than being the other’s employee, tenant, lodger or boarder. - live togev but no sexual rels (d) they are relatives

Answer 6

(e) they have agreed to marry one and other (whether or not that agreement has been terminated)- need evidence to say married cant just say it (f) they have or have had an intimate personal relationship with each other which is or was of a significant duration. The Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 - relationship need not be sexual but that platonic friends are excluded-pugging of gap covers those who not cohab , really covering people who are DATING, intimate personal rels, btw platonic friends and sexual rels, longstanding rels doesn’t include 1 night stands (g) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (h) in relation to any child, they are both persons falling within subsection (4); if u fall within subsec 4 u are parent of child or someone with pr or- (i) they are parties to the same family proceedings (other than proceedings under this Part).-e.g parties to a s.8 order

Answer 7

excludes STALKERS,if the victim has never been in a rels | but if not cant use molestation but u can use PROTECTION FROM HARRASSAMENT

Answer 8

s. 43 u can apply if under 16 if u got a leave court have to prove gilick competence know consequence of what ur ding - : Under 16 with leave of the court

Answer 9

G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) [2000] Couple did not cohabit but spent 2 or 3 nights together They held a joint bank account They were in a sexual relationship

Answer 10

G v F says a ‘purposive’ approach should be taken -purposive approach in defining an associaterd person so in other words must look at construction of the act, taking u back to skills and assiting module so u need purposive approach and then in case of crake

Answer 11

- Their relationship met some of the six signposts set out in Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982]

Answer 12

1. whether they were members of the same household 2. whether the relationship was stable 3. whether there is financial support 4. whether there is a sexual relationship 5. whether they have children 6. whether there is public knowledge of the relationship

Answer 13

Said in gvf that this couple met some sign posts in case cases not clear if someon associated or not

Answer 14

s. 42(2) – court’s power to make order where it feels one should be made

Answer 15

s.42(5) – ‘all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant or any relevant child’

Answer 16

Heath includes physical and mental health so do not need physical violence

Answer 17

Standard wording of an order: ‘respondent is restrained from assaulting, molesting, annoying or otherwise interfering with the applicant or any child living with the applicant.’

Answer 18

- for a limited or unlimited amount of time

Answer 19

Focus on s.42 5 is on th need for porteoction and looks at needs of victim?? So what does the victimactuall need

Answer 20

So act doesn’t look back, just confirms criminal not sayig has to prove just say does v need protecton going forward AIM OF ACT IS PROTECT NOT ON CONDUCT ITS ON VICTIMS NEED

Answer 21

``` s 42(6) the order can refer to a particular act of molestation E.g. persistent telephone calls ```

Answer 22

Courts have a wide discretion whether to grant a non-molestation order U just have to rpve safety and wellbeing is in threat law is victim focused

Answer 23

No specific evidence of violence or threats of violence are required any behaviour that harrases appl falls under this

Answer 24

Standard of proof – balance of probabilities | -51%

Answer 25

answer to this q is no , bc the focus is on response of v not the offenders intention , so if you were to say for e.g person end rels with someon else they mght want to have contact, harassment, recieiven unwelcomig but intention isn’t to harass

Answer 26

But 1 of things wont make mol order if no effect, so if have someone who is wouldn’t understand implication of non order wont make it, so no effect wont make one

Answer 27

Reason on response bc lets say u were under influence of drugs, so if law says u must intend if u were in durnk could say weren in right mind that’s why they focus on the v

Answer 28

Non molestation, occupation and proteftion from harassment will come up as all 3 topics in a esay q and if it’s a problem q in exam then protection from harassment and occupational roders will go hand in hand so normaly talk about potetoj from hrrrass and occupation order bs question ask would normall be with someone living with someone else so would pass an occupation order, so this is only 50% what u need to write about, the law isn’t very clear wooly, so al u have to see if behaviour falls under non moles and associated and is the safety wellbeing of someone being harmed and just remebr if they breach it.

Answer 29

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 30

those failing outside of Family Law Act 1996-fall out family law casue they are not associated people

Answer 31

So for this u don’t need to prove related/ relationship-no requirement of relationship – Act created to deal with stalkers

Answer 32

the act was created to deal with stalkers but a lot of stalkers are ex partners and some current partners aswell,

Answer 33

still discuss protection from harraass because its really broad its not designed for cohab couple or people who know eachother, but those people dof all under protection from ahrrassment, so in most q on violence of family cover all 3 , q will be designed for u to cover all that

Answer 34

must satisfy s1 subsection 2 - find all sections in stat

Answer 35

what is harassment?

Answer 36

lack of statutory definition but see s.7(2)-

Answer 37

References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress

Answer 38

-so that the fact that person suffers distress may not be h, the behaviour needs to be judged objectively to be h, you ought to know causing h or someone else objectively that behaviour h

Answer 39

Hipgrave v Jones [2005] ‘so grave as to amount to a criminal offence or little more than boorishness or insensitive behaviour’ -so shows wide spectrum of behaviour, could be fairly serious to fairly minor

Answer 40

Hayes v Willoughby [2013] ‘a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress’ -so tells us that have to look at impact of behaviour on victim

Answer 41

So have to think about someone sending lots of flowers to someon e.g flowers twie a day might make v feel uncofrtbale but if smeone else thinks h then it will be even if perp don’t, sending flowers inst bad but loads is bad

Answer 42

what is a course of conduct?

Answer 43

In exam always have 1 person and conduct on 2 occ In rel to that person, I would make note of b… cause in exam 1 person

Answer 44

regarding a single person – conduct on at least 2 occasions s. 7(3) - So don’t need lengthy vendetor

Answer 45

Kelly v DPP [2002] - three phone calls in 5 minutes - this also tells us that conduct can include speech

Answer 46

Lau v DPP [2000] - girlfriend slapped, then verbally abused four months later -case held no h cause no course of conduct , they said the two incidents were not connected

Answer 47

Two incidents does not automatically mean a course of conduct has been established:

Answer 48

R v Hills [2001] - one incident in April, second in October -1 in april, 1 October consiture course of conduct but in r v hills ther was cohab btw 2 incidents, so couple cohab btw the 2 indidents

Answer 49

R v Curtis [2010] - ill-temper and bad behaviour but affectionate life too -so couple cohab btw the 2 indidents,casue act isn’t for cohab people , andthese 2 cases long way from stalking cases

Answer 50

Courts done said not deisng ed for cohab but in theory there is no reason why they cant use it, maybe discouraged to use it, so this is the acts sole purpose not cohab , exam something u need to watch, but has been used in other ways so fairly wide ranging.

Answer 51

‘protection from stalkers, racial abusers, disruptive neighbours, bullying at work and so forth’

Answer 52

Act has been used in demonstrations at an animal laboratory - Huntingdon Life Services Ltd v Curtis (1997)

Answer 53

As student ask if I was dam protection for harr or non mol I think go non mol asso= quick and designed to cover and also u can combine with occupational order Non mel occ= ecludes someone from home , so ned comb realy?????

Answer 54

how far does the person in question need to be aware of the nature of his actions?

Answer 55

- knows or ought to know (s 1) | - meaning of ‘ought to know’ in s 1(2)

Answer 56

Need to watch out people suffering mental health issues do they fall under this, they may fall outside but could dall under objective bt?? Course of conduct h?

Answer 57

A defence is available in s 1(3)

Answer 58

On defendant-Up to d to show b falls udner one of this sections, debt colctor fall under s1 3 etc etc journalism

Answer 59

creates both a civil wrong and a criminal offence - allows criminal law to punish but provides protection for the victim - do not have to pursue both criminal and civil remedies. Civil enforcement may still be used when the standard of proof for criminal acts is not satisfied