Introduction
The new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (‘DAA 2021’)[1] aims to promote awareness of domestic abuse, protect and support victims, hold perpetrators to account, and improve the justice system’s response.[2] With regards to raising awareness of the crime, the DAA 2021 makes significant headway, being the first statutory definition of domestic abuse in England.[3] The Act recognises the variety of forms which domestic abuse can take, moving the focus away from solely physically violent incidents to other forms of abuse and the role of control within abusive relationships.[4] In doing so, this article proposes that the Act adopts a relatively ‘modern’ understanding of domestic abuse.
However, it is proposed that the gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse in the DAA 2021 prevents the Act from being able to truly transform the justice system’s response to domestic abuse. Outdated misconceptions of domestic abuse within the police force and family courts reveal that it cannot be taken for granted that the ‘modern’ conception of domestic abuse found in the statutory definition is reflected in practice. Promoting a fuller understanding of the gendered nature of domestic abuse can help bridge the gap between the theory and how the Act is applied in practice, allowing it to work effectively within the justice system. In order to achieve this, this article will propose that the statutory guidance to the DAA 2021 should include further detail on the gendered aspect of domestic abuse and the way this impacts female victims.
Background
Responding to the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Lords recommended that the Bill should recognise the gendered context of domestic abuse to ensure that public authorities understand the causes of domestic abuse and can effectively tackle the issue.[5] Their recommendation recognises the risk of excluding other victims and the need for public policy to incentivise victims to speak up regardless of their gender. Thus, their recommended draft clause read: ‘when applying Section 1 and 2 of this Act public authorities providing services must have regard to the gendered nature of abuse and the intersectionality of other protected characteristics of service users in the provision of services, as required under existing equalities legislation.’[6] However, the government preferred to retain a gender-neutral approach to the definition of domestic abuse, arguing that the gendered nature of the crime could be recognised in the statutory guidance.[7] This article contends that the statutory guidance does not do this satisfactorily — more emphasis on the gendered nature of the crime and its disproportionate impact on women is needed to combat the misconceptions held in the courts.
Currently, the statutory guidance sets out the objectives of the Act, defines domestic abuse and specialist terms such as ‘personally connected’ used within it, and contextualises the role of individual agencies in recognising, understanding and responding to domestic abuse. In particular, Chapter 3 of the guidance provides helpful explanations of the different forms of abuse which can constitute domestic abuse and how these might affect victims in their everyday lives.[8] In addition, due to the important role the DAA 2021 gives police officers in tackling domestic abuse,[9] it is essential that the modern understanding of the nature of domestic abuse seen in the Act is properly translated into practice. These changes will increase the practical effect of the new legislation. Whilst wider social change in attitudes on domestic abuse might be beyond what detailed statutory guidance can achieve, it is important to recognise here that the issue is not simply wider social attitudes but their prevalence and application within the legal system itself. The first section of this article will propose that the DAA 2021 adopts a ‘modern’ academic understanding of domestic abuse. The next section will explain the gulf between the theory (reflected in the definition of domestic abuse in the new Act) and practice when it comes to the treatment of domestic abuse in England. Lastly, this article will consider some counter-arguments to adopting a more gendered understanding of domestic abuse.
At this stage, it is helpful to pause to briefly explain what this article proposes by asserting that domestic abuse is often gendered. Firstly, statistically, as will be expanded on below, domestic abuse affects women disproportionately.[10] The second reason relates to the nature of the tactics often used by abusers. Evan Stark’s theory of coercive control[11] is useful here in noting several characteristics of domestic abuse. For example, the tactics used to control the victim have an individualised dimension, controlling detailed aspects of their lives according to gendered stereotypes of how a woman should dress, act, work and relate with others. Stark notes that thus, such tactics are reinforced by gender norms and are used to further these expectations of women.[12] This aspect of domestic abuse is the focus of this article in referring to the ‘gendered’ nature of domestic abuse. As will be explained below, the prevalence of this abuse towards women and the way female victims are currently treated in the justice system warrants some changes.
Section 1: The ‘modern’ understanding of domestic abuse underlying the DAA 2021
Over the years, academic perspectives on the nature of domestic abuse have changed significantly. Domestic abuse is no longer thought of in terms of instances of violence; instead, there is a focus on the element of control, a course of conduct which can manifest in a range of ways (emotional, physical, financial…) and on the impact this has on the victim.[13] An early conception of domestic abuse by Dempsey theorised that the three main elements involved were: violence, domesticity (the nature of the relationship between the parties) and structural inequality (social rules which lead to uneven power distribution and help maintain abusive structures).[14] However, this approach has been criticised for focusing too much on the violent consequences of some abusive relationships.[15] In fact, Whereas, according to Dempsey’s approach, it was possible to distinguish between domestic abuse in the ‘strong’ sense and domestic abuse in the ‘weak’ sense, with the stronger being incidents involving violence.[16]
A range of academics have developed this theory since; for example, Mary Ann Dutton conceptualised domestic abuse as one involving a relationship of an abusive nature and control, rather than just one or several discrete events.[17] Stark’s work is also crucial in this field — a sociologist and forensic social worker, he coined the widely–used theory of ‘coercive control’.[18] This theory recognises a wider range of ways in which domestic abuse can occur in practice,[19] and underlies the government’s definition of ‘coercive control’ in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015[20] as well as the new definition of domestic abuse in the DAA 2021.[21] Stark notes that violence is not an inevitable part of domestic abuse; instead, abusive partners can exert control over their partners in a range of ways. The characteristics of this model include: the individualised and particular means an abuser employs to control their victim; the abuser’s focus on eroding the victim’s self-identity and confidence; and the fact that this oppressive behaviour can often occur over the course of a relationship.[22] Crucially, Stark’s model recognises the gendered nature of the crime and the fact that, in many cases, the tactics used to control the victim focus on gender stereotypes and their performance of societal gender ‘roles’.[23] This argument is supported by Herring, who argues that social inequalities and patriarchal beliefs enable domestic abuse, whilst domestic abuse in turn supports patriarchal views.[24] For example, a patriarchal family structure might normalise violence within the family, treating the imposition of ‘rules’ as normal if the man is accepted as the ‘leader’ of the family. In turn, domestic abuse reinforces messages about women as subservient, denies them an autonomous life and detrimentally impacts their ability to access the labour market.[25]
In enacting the DAA 2021, the Government seems to be adopting part of this modern conception of domestic abuse, whilst doing injustice to the gendered aspect of the puzzle. The DAA 2021 defines domestic abuse in section 1(2):
‘Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if—
(a)A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and
(b)the behaviour is abusive.’[26]
The Act further defines the terms ‘economic abuse’ in section 1(4) and ‘personally connected’ in section 2. This definition depicts that the government’s understanding of domestic abuse has adapted to the modern academic view, recognising the often long-term nature of domestic abuse and the variety of ways it can impact a victim. However, this article will propose that in light of the current perception of victims of domestic abuse within the courts, a fuller understanding of the disproportionate impact of domestic abuse on women is needed. In addition, the guidance on combatting domestic abuse under DAA 2021 for law enforcement agencies should contain a more accurate understanding of the current disproportionate effects of domestic abuse on women.
Section 2: The argument for a more gendered understanding of domestic abuse in practice.
Whilst the theory on and definition of domestic abuse in England now reflect a more ‘modern’ view, the same perhaps cannot be said for the situation in practice. It is proposed that a more gendered understanding of domestic abuse in the legal system will remedy this gap, enabling the DAA 2021 to be more effective in practice. This section will explore two advantages of this proposal by examining the way police officers and family courts currently respond to domestic abuse.
- Police officers
The DAA 2021 gives police officers an important role in spotting and dealing with domestic abuse. Police officers have previously played a role in responding to domestic abuse,[27] and the new Act continues and platforms this. Section 22 allows a senior officer to give a written domestic abuse protection notice to a person (‘P’) if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that they have been abusive towards someone over the age of 16 to whom they are personally connected.[28] This protection notice can prevent further abuse by, for example, stipulating that P cannot contact the other party or come within a specified distance of them.[29] As this is only a short-term measure, the officer must also notify the court and apply for a domestic abuse protection order within 48 hours of the notice being issued.[30] Whilst police officers are not the only authorised party who can apply to the court for a protection order,[31] they play a significant role in reporting such crimes. Domestic abuse offences make up 17.1% of all offences recorded by the police,[32] and it is likely that their importance in dealing with the crime will continue, given the role designated to them within the DAA 2021.[33] Considering the crucial role of police officers within the new Act and the frequency with which they deal with such cases, it is essential that guidance to the police force ensures that the modern understanding of domestic abuse can be translated into practice.
However, the current statutory guidance on the DAA 2021 does not meet this expectation. Whilst it details that the police should take a trauma–informed and trauma–responsive approach to dealing with domestic abuse,[34] it takes for granted what this approach means. A trauma–informed approach would incorporate the ‘four Rs’— realise the impact, recognise signs and symptoms, respond by integrating knowledge into action and resist re-traumatisation.[35] In order to do this, the police would need to understand the experiences and unique position of female victims (given that the tactics deployed by abusers are often gendered).[36] However, current research reveals that this is not the reality. In a study examining fifteen women’s interactions with the first responder officer, a common theme from the participants’ evidence was the feeling that their experiences and evidentiary factors were disregarded by the officer.[37] This article proposes that the guidance on the new DAA 2021 fails to recognise the stark gendered impact of domestic abuse, and such a realisation is important to respond properly and avoid re-traumatisation. The guidance acknowledges that domestic abuse can often be a process of “repeat victimisation”, simply stating that controlling behaviour can be gendered.[38] This article proposes that the statutory guidance can address this by including more accurate and illuminating statistics on how domestic abuse affects women, the range and nature of the control tactics used (drawing on Stark’s work)[39] and insights from evidence on how this can affect female victims in their pursuit of justice. These understandings will enhance officers’ and courts’ abilities to properly protect victims of abuse.
- Family courts
Similarly, the treatment of domestic abuse within the family court system reveals a need for a shift in the understanding of, and attitudes towards, domestic abuse. The misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse can be seen in the treatment of the issue in child arrangement proceedings. These proceedings can be triggered by one or both of the parents disagreeing on living and contact arrangements concerning a child.[40] Practice Direction 12J provides guidance for family proceedings on Child Arrangement Orders (‘CAO’) which involve allegations or admitted occurrences of domestic abuse and, similar to the DAA 2021, it encapsulates a ‘modern’ understanding of domestic abuse.[41] In such cases, the court is obliged to consider the best outcome for the child, bearing in mind that domestic abuse towards a parent can expose the child to indirect abuse (affecting the parent’s ability to fulfil their role) or direct (physical, psychological and/or emotional harm abuse).[42] This might require the court to conduct a fact–finding hearing to determine whether there was domestic abuse if ‘necessary and proportionate’ to the welfare calculation being made.[43] However, several cases demonstrate that this theoretical understanding of domestic abuse is not always reflected in practice.
For example, Re H-N and Others concerned four individual appeals on the treatment of domestic abuse allegations during their hearings.[44] The first case, Re B-B, involved an appeal by the mother against a consent order on the grounds that the order was made in the context of allegations which gave her no option but to agree.[45] In Re B-B, the Court of Appeal noted that the judge made unguarded comments about the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse.[46] The court noted that the refusal to hear the mother’s allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour and threatening nature towards the mother amounted to serious procedural irregularities.[47] Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position of female victims in such cases and the impact that long-term abuse can have on women mentally, making it more difficult for them to defend themselves or do so appropriately.[48] The Court of Appeal found that the judge had been unduly dismissive of the allegations and that this was likely to have impacted the decision not to conduct a fact-finding hearing, rendering the consent order unsafe.[49] In Re B-B, a non-dismissive attitude towards the allegation would have led to a fact-finding hearing and would likely have had a material impact on the outcome, which in this case affected the mother and the child.
Similarly, in Re H, the trial judge refused to investigate allegations of financial and emotional abuse, claiming that these were not relevant to the child arrangement proceeding (‘CAP’) at hand.[50] The other two cases on appeal in Re H-N demonstrate similar views of domestic abuse victims, with the judge in one saying that the mother sought to gain an advantage by presenting herself as a victim of serious domestic abuse.[51] Whilst the Court of Appeal decried the reasoning in each of the four cases on appeal, they asserted that such unsupportable reasoning was the exception and not the norm. They argued that this was evidenced by the low number of appeals of CAP outcomes, despite a large number (between 40-62%)[52] of CAP cases involving domestic abuse allegations.[53] However, a range of factors such as cost, legal advice and an individual’s experience of court can impact their decision to apply for an appeal. A low number of CAP appeals does not necessarily prove that there is a proper handling of domestic abuse in these hearings.[54] This article proposes that a first step to combatting these misconceptions about domestic abuse is to raise awareness of the full nature of coercive and controlling behaviour and its impact on female victims. The DAA 2021 partially does this by providing an accessible definition of abuse and highlighting various ways in which this can manifest. However, the statutory guidance should be amended to detail the gendered nature of the crime as well as its effects on women and their experience of the justice system.
Within public child law proceedings, recent research by Deblasio shows the re-traumatising effect that mother-blaming can have on survivors of domestic abuse. The research consisted of interviews with ten ‘birth mothers’[55] whose children had all been taken into care. Around 50% of the participants were surprised at the negative way in which evidence was presented in court, despite having seen the reports that were going to be presented prior.[56] The participants noted that this treatment often conflicted with how they had been treated by domestic abuse support workers.[57] A conflicting approach to dealing with victims of domestic abuse is hardly likely to be an effective one, particularly if this leads to fewer victims feeling confident to report allegations. Given that the statutory guidance on the DAA 2021 is directed at anyone working with victims or perpetrators, including the police, local authorities and the NHS, it is important that the guidance contains a more robust explanation of the gendered nature of domestic abuse. This will enable more coherent and informed treatment of victims by these organisations. As suggested above, this should include an accurate statistical portrayal of the impact of domestic abuse on women, an explanation of the control tactics involved in abusive relationships and recommendations on how the legal system can better support female victims.
Further reform will likely be needed: for example, the fact-finding form which applicants must fill in before a domestic abuse fact-finding hearing focuses solely on incidents and is not very conducive to establishing a pattern or relationship of abuse.[58] However, these further changes are outside the scope of the main discussion of this article.[59]
Section 3: Counter-arguments: against a more gendered approach to domestic abuse.
The first argument against expanding on the gendered nature of domestic abuse in the government’s recent legislation would be the recognition that anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse and should not be exempt from support services or justice.[60] This article does not argue otherwise and supports the government’s recognition of this in the DAA 2021. Indeed, an intersectional approach to domestic abuse would recognise that a victim’s susceptibility to, and experience of, such abuse can depend on a range of factors including race, immigration status, class and gender identity.[61] However, further analysis reveals that the evidence on the nature and extent of domestic abuse often used to inform policy does not reveal an accurate picture of who domestic abuse affects.
In August 2020, the Home Office stated that there are around 2.3 million victims of domestic abuse a year, aged 16-74, with two-thirds of them being women.[62] It is frequently cited that ‘1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men have experienced domestic violence’.[63] However, analysis by Bishop reveals that the definition of domestic violence within this statistic does not correlate to the modern understanding of domestic abuse.[64] Within this statistic, domestic abuse is treated as singular incidents, conflating different forms of violence and domestic abuse.[65] The implication of this is that (violent) acts of self-defence by victims can also be treated as isolated events of domestic violence in themselves. Not only do these statistics not reveal the statistically gendered nature of domestic abuse today, it is also difficult to portray the gendered ideals and methods which support abusive behaviour towards women within such figures.[66] The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that 5% of adults (6.9% of whom were women and 3% men) experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2022 (around 1.7 million women and 699,000 men).[67] These statistics reveal that the number of female victims of abuse is more than double the number of male victims, a picture different to the ‘1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men’ rhetoric often used. Therefore, whilst this article does not propose that the statutory understanding of domestic abuse should neglect other victims of abuse apart from women, it is important for the statutory guidance and wider policy to recognise its disproportionate effects on women.
Further to this, an important concern is the potential alienating impact that a gendered definition of domestic abuse might have on non-female victims.[68] Julie Goldscheid has noted that framing domestic abuse solely around women can deter male victims or people in LGBT+ relationships from reporting domestic abuse and seeking help from the police and courts.[69] This is important, especially given that in England and Wales domestic abuse crimes are already under-reported amongst male victims.[70] A legislative definition which had the effect of deterring victims from seeking help would be counter-productive to the aim of such legislation. Thus, this article does not propose that the government change the definition of domestic abuse within the DAA 2021 as the definition importantly communicates what we recognise as domestic abuse. Furthermore, improving support for female victims need not hinder improving support for other groups but can instead be a first step in promoting understanding and properly protecting victims of abuse.
Instead, the statutory guidance, an important guidance document aimed at those working with victims of abuse, should include a more expansive discussion on the gendered nature of domestic abuse in England today. It is also worth noting that doing so does not prevent the government from further recognising unique ways in which domestic abuse can also affect other individuals (for example, male victims or disabled victims) and their experience of the justice system. The purpose of this change is not purely theoretical or illusory: recognising the way domestic abuse currently affects women is important to ensure that the DAA 2021 can be effective in transforming the response of the justice system. This will enable this ‘modern’ understanding reflected in the Act to translate into practice and reinforce a practice of treating victims with greater understanding and empathy.
Lastly, there is the argument that the law does not need to recognise the social reality of domestic abuse and that this can simply be reflected in social understanding.[71] Whilst this argument has some weight, family legislation is affected by the norms which shape its application by legal personnel.[72] Thus, legislation which cannot be supported by the legal infrastructure is likely to lead to no change, or slow and ineffective change. This can be remedied either by changing the legislation or by transforming the legal infrastructure which surrounds it. The latter is recommended here, starting with a change in the understanding of domestic abuse within the legal system.
Conclusion:
Overall, this article has argued that whilst the DAA 2021 marks a significant step in combatting domestic abuse by placing a ‘modern’ definition of the crime on a statutory basis, the Act cannot effectively change the response of the justice system without further acknowledgement of the gendered nature of domestic abuse. This article does not propose a change in the definition of domestic abuse within section 1 of the DAA 2021 as one of its current strengths is in the Act’s acknowledgement of the variety of ways in which domestic abuse can affect victims, regardless of their gender.[73] However, an expansion of the often gendered nature and impact of domestic abuse is imperative to disband stereotypes about female victims of abuse and ensure fair treatment of these victims within the justice system. This work begins by recognising the current gendered impacts of domestic abuse in order to ensure better protection of victims. This article proposes incorporating a gendered understanding of domestic abuse in the statutory guidance under the DAA 2021. system. However, the new DAA 2021 need not stop there- it should rather be the first step in changing wider misconceptions about victims in order to better assist those affected.
[1] Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
[2] Home Office, ‘Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance’ (July 2022) 16 (Domestic Abuse Guidance).
[3] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1.
[4] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1(1)-(4).
[5] Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, Draft Domestic Abuse Bill (2017-19, HL 378, HC 2075), para 72.
[6] ibid, paras 73-74.
[7] Home Office, The Government Response to the Report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill (CP 137, 2019), paras 62–63.
[8] Domestic Abuse Guidance (n 2), ch 3.
[9] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 22.
[10] ‘Domestic abuse prevalence and victim characteristics, England and Wales: year ending March 2022’ (Office for National Statistics, 2022) <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022> accessed 18 March 2023.
[11] Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press 2007).
[12] ibid 198-227.
[13] Jonathan Herring, Domestic Abuse and Human Rights (Intersentia 2020), ch 2.
[14] Michelle Madden Dempsey, ‘What counts as domestic violence? A conceptual analysis’ (2006) 12(2) William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 301.
[15] Herring (n 13) 26-27.
[16] Dempsey (n 14) 318.
[17] Mary Ann Dutton, ‘Understanding Women’s Response to Domestic Violence’ (2003) 21(4) Hofstra Law Review 1191, 1204.
[18] Stark (n 11).
[19] ibid.
[20] Serious Crime Act 2015, s 76.
[21] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 68.
[22] Stark (n 11) 366-370.
[23] ibid 378-380.
[24] Herring (n 13) 37-43.
[25] ibid.
[26] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 1(1)-(2). See also s 1(3) for the list of what constitutes domestic abuse.
[27] Crime and Security Act 2010, ss 24-32.
[28] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 22.
[29] ibid, s 23.
[30] Ibid, s 25.
[31] Ibid, s 28(2).
[32] ‘Domestic abuse prevalence and victim characteristics’ (n 10).
[33] Charlotte Bishop, ‘Prevention and protection: will the Domestic Abuse Act transform the response to domestic abuse in England and Wales?’ (2021) 33(2) Child and Family Law Quarterly 163.
[34] Domestic Abuse Guidance (n 2), para 342.
[35] Lisamarie Deblasio, ‘The re-traumatisation of domestic abuse survivors: the problem of mother blaming in public child law proceedings’ (2022) 34(1) Child and Family Law Quarterly 1, 12.
[36] Stark (n 11), 378-379.
[37] June Keeling, Katherine van Wormer & Paul Taylor, ‘Women’s narratives on their interactions with the First Response Police Officer following an incidence of domestic violence in the UK’ (2015) 3(1) Journal of Sociology and Criminology 1, 2.
[38] Domestic Abuse Guidance (n 2) 104-7.
[39] Stark (n 11).
[40] Mandy Burton, ‘What can go wrong in child arrangement proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse?’ (2021) 43(4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 471.
[41] Practice Direction 12J 2A and 3 recognises coercive behaviour to be “an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim”.
[42] Practice Direction 12J 4.
[43] Practice Direction 12J 17.
[44] Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.
[45] Re B-B (Domestic Abuse Fact-Finding) (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 108.
[46] Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ. 448, [108] – [114].
[47] ibid.
[48] Stark (n 11), 367-368; Aileen McColgan, ‘In Defence of Battered Women who Kill’ (1993) 13(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 508, 510-513.
[49] Re H-N (n 43) [108].
[50] ibid [125].
[51] ibid [194].
[52] Adrienne Barnett, ‘Domestic Abuse and Private Law Children Cases: A Literature Review’ (Ministry of Justice, 2020) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895175/domestic-abuse-private-law-children-cases-literature-review.pdf> accessed 23January 2023.
[53] Mandy Burton and Vanessa Bettinson, ‘Domestic abuse and child arrangement proceedings: identifying and assessing the risk of harm, including coercive and controlling behaviour’ (2022) 3 Child and Family law Quarterly.
[54] ibid.
[55] This term is simply used to differentiate between the interviewees (who gave birth to the children) and the individuals who presently act as mothers to the children.
[56] Deblasio (n 35) 9.
[57] ibid.
[58] Rosemary Hunter, Mandy Burton and Liz Trinder, ‘Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases: Final Report’(Ministry of Justice, 2020) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895173/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf> accessed 23 January 2023.
[59] ibid 58; Burton and Bettinson (n 51) 8-11.
[60] Nel Whiting, ‘A Contradiction in Terms? : A Gendered Analysis & Same Sex Domestic Abuse’ (Scottish Women’s Aid, 2007) <https://reducingtherisk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/contradiction.pdf> accessed 23 January 2023.
[61] Herring (n 13) 52.
[62] ‘Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview: November 2020’ (Office for National Statistics, 25 November 2020) <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020> accessed 18 March 2023.
[63] Bishop (n 33) 164.
[64] ibid.
[65] ibid 165.
[66] ibid.
[67] ‘Domestic abuse overview November 2020’ (n 60).
[68] Lesley Orr, ‘The Case for a Gendered Analysis of Violence Against Women’ (Scottish Women’s Aid, 2007) <https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/3000/https://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/925/0063070.pdf> accessed 17January 2023.
[69] Julie Goldscheid, ‘Gender Neutrality and the “Violence against Women” Frame’ (2015) 5(2) University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 307, 438-439.
[70] Julie C Taylor and others, ‘Barriers to Men’s Help Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence’ (2021) 37 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17.
[71] Sandra Walklate, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, and Jude McCulloch, ‘Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories’ (2018) 18(1) Criminology and Criminal Justice 115, 124.
[72] John Dewar, ‘The Normal Chaos of Family Law’ (1998) 61(4) The Modern Law Review 467.
[73] Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s 2.