It really worries me when I see the Government brining in such changes as stopping false accusers being cross examined. Yes; it's hard on REAL victims but the answer is NOT denying innocent men and women their right to prove their innocence. Example; if someone gives evidence that they were abused by someone years ago, should it be concealed from Judge and Jury that they raped their 10 year old sister when they were 20? Yes; it doesn't mean they were not abused but it does imply that their evidence in matters of sexuality might not be deemed entirely accurate. So a woman who found a new boyfriend, smacks her head on a brick and claims her husband abused her, cannot be cross examined? Doesn't seem like JUSTICE to me.

metro.co.uk/2019/01/21/domestic-abuse-su...users-court-8367849/

JK2006 wrote:
It really worries me when I see the Government brining in such changes as stopping false accusers being cross examined. Yes; it's hard on REAL victims but the answer is NOT denying innocent men and women their right to prove their innocence. Example; if someone gives evidence that they were abused by someone years ago, should it be concealed from Judge and Jury that they raped their 10 year old sister when they were 20? Yes; it doesn't mean they were not abused but it does imply that their evidence in matters of sexuality might not be deemed entirely accurate. So a woman who found a new boyfriend, smacks her head on a brick and claims her husband abused her, cannot be cross examined? Doesn't seem like JUSTICE to me.

metro.co.uk/2019/01/21/domestic-abuse-su...users-court-8367849/

The Ministry of justice need to understand that if the abuser is "alleged" the victim has to be "alleged" too, and stop publishing daft things like.... "Crucially it’s bringing in legislation to ban the direct cross-examination of victims by their alleged abusers."

If the ministry of flipping justice dont get it, what hope is there?

It does seem a worrying development. Perhaps the assumption is that people would never lie about domestic abuse.

Rolf Harris accuser Tonya Lee also accused her partner of domestic abuse.

"Another alleged victim, Tonya Lee, who has waived her right to anonymity, was interviewed by British police in Australia.

Det Sgt Pankhurst said they spoke to her separately from her boyfriend Fian McDaid because he was "controlling".

The officer said: "He was very suspicious of us and appeared to want to manage the whole situation."

...

The court was told that Mr McDaid, who served a jail term for assaulting Ms Lee, claimed she had invented the allegations against Mr Harris."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-27541102

"She [Sonia Woodley QC, Rolf Harris's defence barrister] then asked her [Tonya Lee] if it was true she broke up with her partner of seven years Fian McDaid because he found out she was lying to Women’s Day who had paid her $20,000 for her “spiced up” Harris assault story.

Ms Lee’s voice cracked as she emotionally told the court that the couple broke up because he had allegedly bashed her as she tried to leave him, an assault for which she said he was subsequently charged and later jailed for three months.

She said her partner had been threatening to discredit her and her Harris assault claim if she did not drop her assault allegations against him.

She denied wanting to sell her story telling the court the contracting of celebrity publicist Max Markson was Mr McDaid’s idea and she had never been motivated by money although she later accused Mr Markson of having “stolen” from her by not paying her the agreed sum for the story, which in total was $66,000 including tax.

“That was blood money, that’s not money for frivolity or fun … I was not trying to make a quick buck,” she said."
www.news.com.au/world/lawyer-accuses-wit...90456def08641200f137

The changes in the rules don't prevent all cross examination of a "victim" (I think they mean "complainant"). They ban cross examination of the complainant victim survivor sexual genocide refugee by the "abuser" (I think they mean "defendant").

What bothers me much more is the new laws against "economic abuse" and "controlling and manipulative non-physical abuse." There are obvious and major problems defining what those are, and establishing the crime with adequate evidence.

More generally, I don't see why there needs to be extra legislation prohibiting domestic violence. Existing laws about assault etc cover violence in the home just as well as outside.

And just take a look at this, from the article

Sandra Horley, chief executive of the charity Refuge, said: "...the cost to women and children’s lives is devastating."


Zero concern about male victims of domestic violence who, according to the research, are apparently about as numerous as females.