Sentencing Domestic Violence Offences and the Victim's Wishes
| Author | Vanessa Bettinson |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5580-77.1.28 |
| Date | 01 February 2013 |
| Published date | 01 February 2013 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
Sentencing Domestic Violence Offences and the
Victim’s Wishes
Wilson v United Kingdom (App. No. 10601/09, 23 October 2012)
Keywords Victims; Sentencing; Domestic violence
This case involved the sentencing policy of Northern Ireland in respect of
domestic violence offending. The applicant was assaulted by her hus-
band in October 2007 after they had been out drinking. Altogether her
injuries amounted to multiple bruising, a blow to her head and a severed
artery that needed several stitches. Although the applicant claimed that
this was a final attack of many, this was the only incident reported to the
authorities. The applicant’s husband was initially charged with causing
grievous bodily harm contrary to s. 18 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861. He was granted bail with a condition preventing him
from residing at the matrimonial home. For a short period the couple
reunited and continued with the relationship, prompting the applicant
to retract her complaint. However, the Public Prosecution Service of
Northern Ireland (PPS) had published specific policy for prosecuting
cases of domestic violence. This provides that a case will not automatic-
ally be stopped because the victim retracts her statement, where there is
sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. As a result the prosecutor
gathered further evidence including: a transcript of the 999 emergency
call made at the scene; medical reports; police notebook entries; serious
crime scene log; photographs of the scene and injuries; further state-
ments to corroborate the applicant’s account; information on the cur-
rent status of the relationship and a risk assessment. The prosecutorial
decision was taken to proceed without the applicant’s statement. How-
ever, the applicant’s relationship with her husband subsequently ended
and, upon hearing of the PPS’s decision to proceed, she reinstated her
complaint.
The PPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence of intention
to do grievous bodily harm on the husband’s part and took the decision
to reduce the charge to the less serious offence of maliciously inflicting
grievous bodily harm (Offences Against the Person Act 1981, s. 20).
After a meeting with the prosecutor Mr Wilson pleaded guilty at his
arraignment to the s. 20 offence. At his sentencing hearing the judge had
before him, inter alia, a victim impact report, photographs of the injuries,
the 999 telephone call transcript, a Probation Service report and a plea in
mitigation. The sentence imposed was 18 months’ imprisonment, sus-
pended for three years.
Following a meeting with the senior public prosecutor who explained
the reasons for the decision to reduce the charge to a less serious offence,
the applicant complained to various public bodies in Northern Ireland
that the sentence was excessively lenient. The Attorney-General was
not in a position to appeal against the sentence to the Court of Appeal on
the grounds that is was unduly lenient as the s. 20 offence is not within
The Journal of Criminal Law
28
To continue reading
Request your trial