Last Thursday a BBC report was published in which I waived my anonymity in order to hold Scottish Ministers and Judiciary to account for their failure to provide protective measures for victims of serious domestic abuse & sexual offences from their perpetrators post-conviction.
This, as for any survivor, was a difficult & complicated decision to make. My story serves as an example of the loopholes that exist for survivors but only scratches the surface of a wider, more systemic issue.
The report reflects on the FOI release I requested from the Scottish Government which alarmingly revealed Non-Harassment Orders were applied at sentencing for just 38% of domestic abuse cases last financial year. Unfortunately, this data evidences that my case is not an anomaly but, in fact, the status quo for most survivors who have aided convictions.
Fiona McMullen, Operations Manager at ASSIST, a specialist court advocacy organization focused on supporting victims of domestic abuse said on BBC Scotland’s Lunchtime Live & Reporting Scotland “Everyday I see cases within our organisation where we have requested orders that haven’t been granted”. She added “Victims are the ones who understand their risk the best” and that victims “report because we have told them as a system that they will be protected”. She concludes that she thought the mandatory consideration of NHOs would be enough but it “clearly isn’t when we see how few NHOs are imposed.”
Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland commented "When someone has the courage to report a sexual offence and go through what can be a difficult legal process, the least the system should do is ensure their safety. Non-harassment orders should be automatic on conviction for any serious sexual offence."
Thomas Leonard Ross KC, writing on the issue, said that the reasons provided to me by the presiding judge in my case were "surprising" and "would have taken some explaining at appeal". He added that "clearly there are unlimited ways that an offender can harass" a person regardless of their location and that the idea that a NHO can be refused because an offender adhered to bail conditions preventing contact strikes him "more as an argument for making an order - the last order worked."
On Wednesday, the office for Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice responded to my request for a review into NHOs. They claim "Scottish ministers do not think it would be appropriate to go further and make the imposition of an NHO mandatory in every case. This is because there may be cases where the facts and circumstances are such that it is clear to the court that it is not necessary to make an NHO."
This week I ask the Cabinet Secretary if government ministers truly believe that NHOs being applied in only 38% of domestic abuse cases is an acceptable figure and if they can clarify the types of 'facts and circumstances' that they claim substantiate victims being refused NHOs in most cases. At the very least, they must acknowledge the current legislation simply is not working as intended and commit to a review into it's effectivity in practice.
Long-term protection for victims should never be reliant on a single, subjective opinion based on what is often a reductive version of events presented at court. A judge can’t understand risk like the victim. Lives are at risk until this ends.
If you'd like to help and live in Scotland, please consider writing to your MSP to ask them to bring this issue to the attention of Parliament. Thank you for all your support so far, I am endlessly grateful.