Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Helen Grant (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 March 2012. It occurred during Topical debate and Backbench debate on International Women's Day.


International Women's Day

Of course we should. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In consequence of the authorities' reluctance to pursue breaches of injunction orders, victims were again and again left thinking, ““Why did I bother getting my injunction order?”” Perpetrators were left thinking, ““I got away with it””. My second observation was that pursuing a civil action required the victim to be in the driving seat, which could be a completely empowering experience. She made the decisions and provided the instructions, supported by her own legal team. In contrast, in criminal cases the victim is merely a witness for the prosecution. She has no control over the proceedings, she is given very little information and she has no legal team to support her. In fact, being a prime witness for the prosecution is an isolating experience and frequently leads to the withdrawal of evidence and the collapse of prosecution cases. My third observation was that domestic violence, like forced marriage, could involve close family members—mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts. Whereas victims were prepared to obtain civil orders to protect themselves, they were often reluctant to pursue a breach, because it would lead to a criminal conviction for the perpetrator and far-reaching consequences for the victim, her family and sometimes the community. Indeed, in a survey in 2011, Dr Aisha Gill of Roehampton university found that 57% of respondents said that victims would be less likely to seek help if forcing someone to marry became a criminal offence. Advocates also argue that victims stand more chance of reconciling with their families if a protection order is invoked rather than a criminal prosecution. Those three observations, together with anecdotal evidence from professional colleagues and the judiciary, suggest that criminalisation of non-molestation injunction orders has left far too many victims without redress and with a real sense of injustice. I remain unconvinced, too, that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled. In forcing someone to marry against their will, numerous other criminal offences may be committed—assault, abduction, aiding and abetting a criminal offence, cruelty, failure to secure attendance at school, false imprisonment, theft, rape, kidnapping, threats to kill, harassment, blackmail and murder. That list shows that we already have a range of criminal laws that can be used to prosecute in a forced marriage context. For all the reasons that I have stated, I am concerned that criminalisation of forced marriage could lead to under-reporting, the export of the crime abroad and the practice being driven substantially underground. There is no quick fix.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
541 c1048-9 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Child benefit Development aid Women Housing benefit Equality Families Domestic abuse Gender Discrimination Forced marriage Poverty Welfare tax credits Reform Rural areas Stalking International Women's Day Forced marriage protection orders
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk