Claire’s Law

[KIP.]

So I did an FOI. 1903 requests for information were made to the police and 722 of those refused. They can’t break down the reasons why they were refused but if you have “left the relationship and are unlikely to return” that’s reason enough to be denied the information. We know women return many times and I think if you have the courage to ask then you should be told. These men often hang around our friends and family after a break up too. The officer I spoke to mentioned data protection and the rehabilitation act, also that some women will use Claire’s Law after separation to use as evidence in court. Good for them I say. Although I understand that’s not the purpose of it. The numbers refused seem overly high to me?

[AlwaysSorry]

I think that reason goes against one of the main reasons behind the law – to make an informed choice. Who are the police to decide if someone is unlikely to return to the relationship? Sure, the longer we are out of the relationship, the stronger we become, but that doesn’t mean an abuser can’t wear us down and convince us to come back. This information could help in such situations where you may be pondering going back or not, much like at the start of a new relationship. To make an informed choice in these situations, it should be disclosed. I think it sounds like a high refusal rate and problematic they can’t break down the reasons further. Knowing what would be grounds for a refusal is also helpful for those considering making a request.
As for being used in court, perhaps the offenders should be facing the consequences of their actions rather than being protected.

[EbonyRaven]

Did they mention how many of the applications had been made by police officers wanting to disclose to victims, where the victim refused to accept the disclosure? Many applications are made in this way after DV incidents come to the attention of officers.

It’s a sad fact that many victims think they already know their partner’s past, fear it would escalate the dv, or think the police are trying to ‘stir things up’ and refuse or object to the application. That makes the application fail.

Also, because they have to deliver the information face to face, many women object to the application made by an officer, so that they do not receive a visit from the police, as that could put them at huge risk if it is seen by the abuser or their friends/family. We are also all too aware I’m sure, that a visit to a station is practically impossible when you are in a relationship with someone controlling who watches your every move.

Women also worry that social services could get involved if an officer puts an application through and highlights a partner’s violent/controlling tendencies, and they might lose their children, so again, object to the application.

All these things massively skew the figures, unfortunately.

[KIP.]

They couldn’t break down the figures at all. To do that they would have to manually go into every application and that would cost too much. He did mention that in the figures were the police trying to disclose information. I told him that would put the fear of death into me in case my abuser found out. There must be a better, safer way of going about it. I think the face to face thing is to do with data protection. I told him how difficult it is to take that step of approaching the police and that’s the crucial time for intervention and sharing information. Not sending them away without the knowledge they’re now in a place to visit. He did suggest I contact WA and get them to raise the issue so I’ve done that. It still seems to be on the side of the perpetrator. I still think that’s a high percentage to be refused and need looking into x

[BeautyMarked]

That does seem high. I find it disgusting how so many systems are on the side of the perpetrator. It is this very fact that drives women back. It’s like being gaslighted by the institutions that should protect.

[EbonyRaven]

You are very right Kip. The way the scheme is managed needs a big overhaul, absolutely.

[Author]

Posts