Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Insights: The ANROWS podcast
Insights: The ANROWS podcast

Episode · 3 years ago

Transforming legal understandings of intimate partner violence

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Despite attempts to reform self-defence laws, in practice, there are significant barriers to raising self-defence for women who have experienced domestic violence and killed their abusive partner.

Transforming legal understandings of intimate partner violence, a research project conducted by ANROWS, examined homicide trials in which self-defence was raised by women who had killed an abusive intimate partner. The project explored how legal professionals and experts understand intimate partner violence (IPV), including which facts are selected and presented as relevant to understanding the homicide, the language used to frame those facts and the conclusions drawn from them.

In this episode, researchers Professor Julia Tolmie (The University of Auckland) and Associate Professor Stella Tarrant (The University of Western Australia) sit down with Michele Robinson, Director, Evidence to Action (ANROWS) to discuss how the research developed, their work in the field, and key takeaways from the research report.

This interview was recorded on the land of the Whadjuk Nyoongar people, the Traditional Owners of the lands and waters where Perth city is situated today.

Insights: the ANROWS podcast is part of ANROWS’s commitment to disseminating and supporting the application of the evidence base that addresses violence against women and their children in Australia.

Hallo, and welcome to insights, the PODCAST for Australia's National Research Organization for Women's safety, also known as Annros. I Michel Robinson, director of the evidence direction team at Annros, and the insights podcast is part of Annros's commitment to disseminating and assisting the take up of evidence that addresses violence against women and their children in Australia. In this episode, we speak to associate professor Stella tarrant from the University of Western Australia and Professor Julia told me from the University of Auckland, about their research report transforming legal understandings of intimate partner of violence. The research examines homicide trials in which self defense is raised by women who have killed an abusive intimate partner. Focusing on the recent case of Western Australia vers as Linnegae. The report examines how and why changes to the law of self defense have not had their intended effect. It explores how legal professionals and experts understand intimate partner violence, influencing which facts are selected and presented as relevant in the criminal process and the meaning made of those facts. The report demonstrates that the model of intimate partner of violance, relied on by prosecutors, expert witnesses, judges and others, can have the effect of either showing the violence of woman claims to have acted in self defense against or of undercutting that claim. It suggests that the current models of intimate partner of Lance used in the criminal justice system prepackage a defendants defensive action in response to intimate part of violence as unreasonable. Welcome, Jewelia and stellar. Before we get into unpacking some of the key findings, can you explain a little about how you came to this area of research and how you ended up working together? Let's start with your stellar. I came to this area of research in the Nineteen S, early nineteen s. It was my interest in feminist scholarship, feminist legal critical scholarship that attracted me for its rigor, it's human rights aspects and it's critical capacity to assess how our society works, and that it was through the Lens of Gender and the position of women in the status of women educated me about that whole area of scholarship. So it was a feminist interest through a legal critical scholarship area. The way, I had a break from this area of scholarship as I was raising kids. But I'm back and I have been back for the last number of years now. And the way that we came to work on the project together, or how I came to work on the project with Julia, was through knowing Julia's work for decades and then seeking or reaching out to Julia because George Judaicy chamories council had reached out to me about the case. So it became a working group really comprising academics and practitioners to try to put together a test case, in this case for the appeal for Cham Reis. Okay, so I met Julia for the first time to work together and personally through this project. I wrote my first academic piece on the topic about thirty years ago as a young academic at the University of Sydney, and I think I just had the sense of it being a really major area of injustice even back then, that I could see that woman that had been let...

...down and it survived essentially torture in their homes within been incarcerated. So it's really that since right back then that this was a major travesty of justice and I've been interested in it for the last thirty years, not working exclusively in the air year, but certainly always have had an eye on it and I've dipped in out of working with it. I remember Stella. Back in those days she wrote an article called something is pushing them to the side of their own lives. Still remember the title to it. Was a really powerful peace so I was always conscious of Stella's work and when she asked me to put some energy into the test case to the High Court of Australia again, the High Court of Australian needs to have a test case in this area because we really need an authority pronouncement from a senior appellette level court. And so it wasn't a convenient time, but I think you have to seize the moment. So and when that didn't go ahead for completely understandable reasons, I guess I sought seeing how difficult it is for a defense council to be trying to do this work in an actual trial, I thought we just have a responsibility as academics to be making that easier for them by by generating research that they can point to and by actually trying to shift people's thinking so they're not doing the whole thing alone as well as trying to represent their client. Yes, it's really fascinating their history that you both share and many years ago when I was working and in the law in Queensland, we were amending the criminal code and the defenses of Selfdefense around Robbie Keener and Wendy Lang. So it does seem like there has been a long passage of time and we come together to discuss this, you know, almost thirty years later. That's really hope that there is some some change in the in the air. The report uses a case study to look at the broader issues of Selfdefense and and intimate partner violence. Why did you choose a case study method and why this case? Well, for myself, the ideas in this report really come out of the work that are done with the family violence, do Youth Review Committee, and one of my really powerful learnings in the role as cheer of that committee is that you can't just help people what to do if to model what to do and there's also a tremendous power in the detail, showing people why it matters and how it makes a difference. And so I'd written an article on behalf of the New Zealand Family Violence Youth Review Committee on that. We need to be thinking about intimate partner violence the form of social entrapment, and I thought, well, I need to show people how that thinking looks on the ground and why it's different from the thinking that's there. So that was why the case and then, of course, the case presented to circumstantially because we were already working on it. Yeah, for me to part a one answer to that question is that we were working on in the test case and and then it became a scholarship and an academic exercise because the care test case was withdrawn. But more than that, I think that choosing one exemplar is appropriate method of work for the work that we're doing, and by that I mean because we're looking at the frameworks of thinking, our methods are not going to be empirical. Our methods are going to be deep, delving deeply into what is actually happening in the fabric of the justice system. So to look at the transcript so...

...that we know exactly where the turns in thinking are happening, like we're in the fabric of that trial. Where was it happening that women's violence was being invisiblized? You know, we know. We know that, but where it? which turn of the thinking, which interactions, which ways of constructing that piece of evidence or those facts is where is it happening? And so so it's an appropriate method of research to go into the to the very deep detail of where it's happening and how the thinking is being manifested. How are how different do you think it would have looked had the high court case continued? I have thought about that and I think I'm very sorry that it hadn't didn't continue, but I do think, on the other hand, we had the opportunity to actually develop our own thinking in a very deep way through doing it this way. I think we were could we were able to concentrate on the things that we've talked about without having, I guess, the deadlines and the the range of grounds of appeal that we would have been bringing. They would have been broader. In a sense, we could delve deeper into the ones that we did look at. So I think that's a good thing and I think it has occurred to me that we've actually done a lot of the work for whenever the next des case guns, that we've got a very, really solid background for when that comes. One of the key findings of the report is that Laura Form has not had the intended effect on practice. Could you talk a little about recent reforms in Australia and their intended effects? Well over the broader trajectory that even even the acceptance by first courts and then legislators that this kind of case could be conceptualized as Selfdefense was a development in the law and that began in the s. But there has been in the two thousands. Law Reform has involved legislative frameworks in some jurisdictions concerned with what kinds of evidence can be admitted in these cases, including expert evidence and lay evidence. There's a statutory regime that is the most complex and advanced in Victoria that acknowledges the admissibility of evidence about the dynamics of family violence and there is also legislative provision in Queensland of a different form to allow that. So there so there is law about evidently admission of evidence. I would say most legal analysts would say that that hasn't changed the admissibility of evidence as from the common law, but it declares the admissibility of the evidence and we found from this project that the value of that, looking at different cases, the value of the statutory declaration that the evidence was admissible as opposed to having to rely on common law, which the West Australian jurisdiction still does, and I think played into the rejection of the social work as evidence, expert evidence in Cham really in a guy's case. The other trajectory of reform has been the one that has been so central in our work with in this jurisdiction of Western Australia, and that is the the recognition that non eminent harm is a basis for selfdefense and that...

...is a that is now accepted in every jurisdiction, but in Western Australia it's and Victoria it's actually expressly stated in the legislation. But you don't feel that this is operating as the reform intended? No, for the reasons that we've seen in the report. But I do. I do think, and this is the one if this is something that's I've realized from doing this work, that the legislation has provided the next the platform for the next phase. That's how I see it, because it's not working, but it's provided a framework for now. The arguments that we're making about one of the things that's done, it's remove the argument that we should not help have selfdefense, at least these emminent harm. It's there in the legislation, so we don't need to argue that at all, and now I've got something we can point to and say, well, this is what the legislation sees and it's not happening. So it kind of gives you leverage and saying that platform in terms of changing the way in which it is concepted, with the the intimate partner violence is conceptualized. One striking suggestion from the report is that using outdated understandings of intimate partner violence automatically renders the use of defensive force against an abusive partner unreasonable. What exactly do you mean when you say this? What are the elements that contribute toward determining outcomes in this way? Essentially, when we're assessing whether someone acted in Selfdefense, that comes down to whatever the legal requirements are, the central normative question, which is whether what they did was reasonable and self defense. So you try and to assist that, and that boils down to what was the nature of the threat they were facing and what other means do they have of dealing with it and when you using some of the Altamo outmoded ways of thinking about intiment partner of violence that are currently been used in the criminal justice system, the nature of the threat is conceived of only is the physical violence and only while it's happening. So with any other point you're not under threat. Now we know that it's not correct. That infects a raft of abuse of behaviors in the operate cumulatively over time and victims lives. So that's one thing. The second thing is the paradigm that we're using at the moment presupposes that she had effective safety options and she a logically failed to exercise them. So that basically means that, if she's not directly under physical attack, she had other effective safety means. Well, that's the assumption. So in other words, if she's not directly been physically attacked, then she's automatically unreasonable and Selfdefense. And worse than that, it's hard not to blame her if you think that's if that's what you're assuming, it's hard not to blame her for allowing things to get to that point. Why didn't she exercise or effective safety options before she got attacked? So it pre packages her behavior is unreasonable and Selfdefense, effectively by virtue of these assumptions which we know from the literature, just aren't their assumptions which aren't substantiated. In fact, and I guess it's a bit of a follow on from that, in the report you recommend that evidence of the availability of alternative avenues to safety should be considered throughout the justice process, before charges are allowed, in advance of trial, during trial and at the end of the trial. How do you see this working in practice? Well, all we're really asking here is that, basically, this one of the central tenants. The job of the prosecution is to prove that she was unreasonable and Selfdefense. It's not her job to prove that she was...

...reasonable in Selfdefense. So to prove she's unreasonable. It's a central tenant of your job that you have to prove that she had other things she could have done. So it's just basically asking for that. But not to assume that there were other things she could have done. Go and actually look what other things could she have done. If you think calling the police would have been helpful, go and talk to experience police officers. Actually find out what they could have actually offered her and her ongoingly dangerous circumstances and what they could have offered her family if her family was also under threat. Just get a realistic appraisal of what actually realistically was available, yes or that, and just what I want wanted to add was just the emphasis to on our insistence on the idea that this these this framework needs to be adopted and learned about and known in all phases. is to point out that the errors, once we see these errors in the trial, we've the error has already been made. This is not about the adjudicative facts between parties in the trial. The kinds of errors that we're looking at errors concerning whether this should be tried at all. So it's a threshold question, whether there is evidence or not, evidence that can disprove selfdefense. So I think it's also insisting on that too, I guess, encourage prosecutors to really see that this is not a trial issue, it's a pre trial issue, and that that also leads into my next question. Is that part of part of this, in my understanding, is what you describe in the reportant resources as a social entrapment framework. Be really great to hear very explicitly what you mean by a social entrapment framework and where this idea comes from? Well, James Potassic is someone who, years ago US said that we need to be thinking of intimate partner violence as a form of social entreatment, and he was drawing on the research literatuld that point in time and this being more of it since then. So the first thing is looking at the raft of abuse, of behaviors used by the perpetrator, but seeing them as much broader and different in nature from just the acts of physical violence. So we have drawn on the work of professor even stark, his work on corusive and controlling behaviors to understand that first slim of social entrapment. But it's also appreciating that what gets woman and trapped in a violent relationship is not just the behaviors of the perpetrator, it's the social responses as well. Are they protective or do they actually endorse the violence? So, for example, if she's told that if the police are contacted again, the children going to be removed from her, will be what you're virtually saying is let's close off this as a safety option. You can't reach out for help again or you're going to lose your kids. So it's looking at the systemic safety response to her, both from communities and from crisis agencies. And the third lip limb of social and trapment is just looking at structural and equities. So, for example, if she doesn't have a phone, she doesn't have any credit on her phone, she doesn't have a car, she's got dependent children, she lives in an isolated area, she surrounded by his family or ever status in the community and support his behavior, that's really significant and understanding what options are available to her. The third limb of social and trapment is just really asking us to look at structural and equity when we examine what supports his coercive and...

...controlling behaviors, what a system and doing that and what affects our systemic safety responses. That makes sense? Yes, the only thing I wanted to add was that the framework that we're suggesting for social entrapment model, as I see it, comes from an out of and is consistent with a long advocacy history of insisting that the violence is assessed and understood within its context, within its social context, and so this is a development of that idea and is consistent with those arguments and advocacy movements that have rick insisted on that as well. Do you agree with that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's just a bit more explicit about how to go about making analyze it. Yes, yeah. The other thing I wanted to say, we were talking about this earlier, was possibly, I think also that this framework of social entrapment maybe be a way that US nonindigenous researchers, scholars, workers can offer and work with then try to develop a discourse with indigenous and aboriginal workers and scholars and researchers, because this the understanding of family violence that is more rounded or complex or context or in a sense, for aboriginal scholars and researchers and nonindigenous scholars and researchers. I think needs we need to keep talking to each other, and I think this is potentially provides a basis for that too. From one of the things that excites me about a social and treatment framework, is someone who's sort of researched and taught within the area of Criminal Law for years, is that most of the people that are coming through the criminal justice system are deal people who are dealing with a mens structural and equity, intersectional and equalities, and yet they the criminal justice system sort of individualize as social problems, turns them into matters of individual choice, and I think a social and treatment framework also allows us a vehicle for starting to talk about those broader things instead of tuning everything into a matter of individual choice or decision, because it's actually a vertely asking us to look at at reactions, responses available, safety systems, structural intersectionality, and it has such an executive force in that in that sense as well at really getting the you know, legal system to step back and and articulate coercive in controlling behaviors and articulate those in such a way that it means that they're better understood, as well as the uncut the social and equities in the structural and equities. The other point I had around that was where the systems abuse would fall into that and an ability to understand vexatious lit against systems abuse is definitely part of the the entrapment that woman experience in the response to intimate partner violence and I would see punit of responses to victims who survived, our unit of criminal justice responses as an ongoing part of the social and treatment that woman of experienced in their abuse of relationships. I mean here's a classic example, police against Cowitie, a woman in New Zealand who's partner dislocated her shoulder and drove ninety she drove ninety miles with a dislocated shoulder and appalling pain to accident emergency. She was in a very isolated area and contact of...

...the police because her partner was asleep in her car and he charged her with driving without a license and driving whilst intoxicated. It's a classic example of what we mean by what potassic talks about in terms of the second tier of entrapment, the indifference of powerful institutions to woman suffering. The messages don't reach out for help. Thank you for clarifying that. I think that's a great example. So, tying the two together, then, when Selfdefense is raised, what does the court need to be satisfied with and how does social entrapment framework fit into that? Well, it just goes back to those two key factual questions, which is, what was the nature of the threat she was facing and what other means did she have for dealing with it? So a social entreatment framework is asking us to understand that those two things are one and the same if we understand the nature of the violence has been about. It's strategic and retaliatory. It's designed to close down her resistance. It's not like the weather all the seasons happening in her life, then we understand that the nature of the stretchy face faces is bound up with what option she has for dealing with it, because it's designed to close down her independence and close down any resistance. And I think also social and treatment framework asks us to realistically look at the evidence as to what safety options were available to her rather than just simply assume. Yeah, and in that from another sort of angle, the way of explaining it to is that selfdefense law can't apply unless we know what violence somebody was up against. So until and unless we know the form and therefore the extent of the violence that someone faced, there's no chance of applying the law of self defense. And so social entreatment as a framework and analysis that allows us to know what violence someone was facing then allows us properly to apply the law of self defense, which, essentially, as Julia says, comes down to a question of reasonableness. How we how we assess someone's behavior in the face of the violence in the resources we've made available a guide for practitioners to get an understanding of the social entreatment framework. One of the issues you've highlighted in the report, however, is the way in which well intension models become flatly applied in ways that make them useless or, worse, harmful. What are you hoping for from the take up of a model of social entrapment? What I think one of the things about social and treatment it's a loose framework of analysis. It's not it's not a one size fits all thing. So everyone's experience of social and treatment is different. The course of controlling strategies are developed by trial and the error over time, for this particular woman, by the person who knows the most intimately. So they're going to be different for every person. These things we can generalize about, but they're different. Some women have enormous protective factors in their communities, some women don't. So we're asking really for a newanced analysis of this particular case. Different people face different forms of structural and equity. Woman from indigenous communities that are being ravaged by the experience of colonization may have very few their extend of family may have very few resources to assist them in times of crisis. Other cases might have different issues that arise. So we're asking for a new, instant, detailed factual analysis, basically, and I guess that's one of the relating back to your question of why we've done a case study. You can't really talk...

...about in the abstract. You have to talk about this particular person's journey and life experiences. That's very different from like, for example, Better Woman Syndrome, which you just assume that whoever she is, whatever her life journey, whatever resources she has, whatever tactics of abuse he's used, these this kind of one size fits all psychological response. I mean one way of saying that too is that it seems to be a framework of questions, like a framework that requires questions to be asked, rather than a framework that says this is a nontology that we know exists and we've got to find whether this person is and so, if we apply the law in this particular way in terms of a social social entrapment to says, provide a special case for intimate partner violence in the sense that you know, does application of a social entrapment framework guarantee acquittal for any defendant who uses lethal force against a partner. Well, the way I see it is it's for it's providing a fuller and more accurate understanding of the facts. That's all it's doing. It doesn't guarantee and acquittal, but how can we fairly assist whether what she did was unreasonable and self defense if we don't understand the facts, and half of them are not even visible to us? I think it's it's precisely the opposite of a special case. Actually, it's a framework that allows this, the law of Selfdefense, to be accessible to some people that it's not accessible to at the moment. And we don't often think of the law of Selfdefense as a human right, but in fact it is. Access to the law, access to a fair assessment, is is a right that we all have and at the moment some people are not being able to access that. I think the way you put it when we're talking earlier on is that we're not actually applying the law at the moment, so it's really just facilitating the application of the laws it was supposed to be applied. So who are you hoping to reach with this report and the related resources, given what you've just said, well, it sounds a bit tripe to say everybody, but it is everybody in the sense that I mean. That follows from what we've been saying. Actually that because it's about frameworks of thinking that we it's it's an interesting facilitating those sorts of changes for people to in their thinking. There aren't many groups the fit. The one group that keeps coming to my mind, and I know to Julia's mind to at the moment, of students. I'm in particularly law students or people who who students who will be working in the justice system, because that's who we have access to, I guess, because we're academics, but also because they they will be the people who are making decisions in the future. So they are a key group. But there are many other groups. I would hope that it would be used in professional development for prosecutors, Defense Council. I'd hope that it be used in judicial training. Basically, the way we see it is as an educational resource across the sector. Can you also see application for this research outside of the legal sector? I'm thinking, for example, of soon to be published and rose research that looks at the way centerlink and Aat in making decisions about whether someone is single or in a couple, when looking at intimate partner violence around decisions in in whether or not a benefit is payable or benefit is allowed or a debt is payable. So decision makers within those types of officers or tribunal settings, for example. Well, we had...

...a really key case quite a few years ago now in New Zealand, Rouco against DPP and which the question was, is she in the marriage or a relationship in the nature of a marriage for the purpose of joining DPP? The domestic purpose is benefit at the time and we had a majority, an amazing majority, court that said we'll know she isn't because she had there was neither reciprocity or choice about her relationship. I think child protection is another area. One of the things we're doing in New Zealand, I'm not clear what the position is in Australia, is prosecuting woman for failing to protect their kids. We're removing woman from removing children from women because they've been unable to prevent the children from being exposed to family violence, or effectively making her responsible for his behavior instead of partnering with her and trying to wrap protection around her and the kids. So I see it, has been directly relevant in that context as well. Doing child protection and an intimate partner violence competent manner. Absolutely, and we also have some research which is looking at that. I guess this is an area that we've been working on and we discussed earlier, separately and together, for a long time over the last thirty years and we recognize the movements forward that in US Sloan and slows and changing and changes slow. I wonder if there were any particular findings, even after all of the work that you've both done in this area, in the research, that you weren't quite expecting or you found surprising. So I guess the two key things for me will I really feel that I deepened my own understanding working with one particular case and thinking of it over and over again in a very thoughtful way. What we're really talking about in the report is paradigms of thought. We're not intending to point the finger, for example, at any individual professional and saying that they got it wrong. Any of US could have been in the position we were using these paradigms of thought and I myself, thirty years into doing this work and still having to challenge my thinking because I revert back into these outmoded ways of thinking. But I guess two things that really sort of were really quite shocking to me and doing this work. One was, you know, part of for me what the report was about, working with one case is not just telling people they needed to do it differently, but just trying to do that myself, modeling how, if we did it differently, this is how we would do it. So that was quite challenging. And one of the really shocking things to me was that we have no way of talking about sexual violence. It doesn't make it sound like bad sex, because I was trying to rewrite a key component of this case is that the sexual violence, which is often very hidden part of intimate partner violence, was very well articulated. But then when you go and try and describe that sexual violence and the way it was described at each level of the court and by the experts and by the prosecution, it just sounded like bad sex. And then when you try, and there is no language to talk about sexual violence that really captures the violence of it. So that was one thing. And then the other thing that became very clear to me, and I think Stella got this before me, but it really became clear to me the more we worked on this case, and you're thinking, sort of deepens on it, that we're actually in a situation where we are convicting women were we actually haven't proven that they're guilty. We have failed to discharge the burden of proof to the criminal standard...

...around this particular defense, and that was kind of shocking to me. You know I for example, in relation to Western Australia against Leanna GAE, the prosecution called days of evidence about DNA, fingerprint, the position of the body, blood spatter, every professional alls impressions as they walked into the scene. Not a single piece of evidence to this key component of the case, which was that she had other safety options. He just asserted it. And in this particular case, who was under threat was not just here, but it was actually family back and street anchor. Now, what would the Australian police realistically be able to do? I would have liked to have heard from an experienced professionals to what they could offer her family in that situation. He simply asserted that she could have called the police and that was the only reasonable option. Not a scaric of proof, and then nobody even challenged that nobody even noticed. Yeah, one of the things I learned from doing this project was the significance of sexual violence in intimate partner violence. I feel that I learned of the silencing, that I learned my frame, my thinking frameworks had both, I guess, ignored or not seen the significance of sexual violence within into intimate partner violence, and I also learned that I, and I think we bifurcate those two concepts so that they are into conceptual, you, universes, and I think that. I I think that we do that within our own scholarship and our own already committed scholarship. I still think that we do that. And so sexual violence within intimate partner violence is increase, is is very central. And again that was because, particularly because in Cham really in a gays case, the evidence of sexual violence was as unusually available, wasn't it so that that was possible to learn? But then, looking back on all many, many other cases that I've read and known, I can see the significance of it that was unknown before. So I think that and I think also that then that leads into the really it seeing that allowed me to deepen my analysis and the structure of thinking to think this is a sewer generous form of violence, and so that the fact that we're thinking of Selfdefense as the physical altercation on one incident is really highlighted when we see that this is can't possibly be described or conceptualized as a fight or a physical altercation or a physical incidence even of even of domestic abuse and is bad sex. Yeah, let's right, it just you just it can't be. So it deepened there. And the other thing that I learned actually was something that we refer to before, and that is the process of change and how the declaration in Statutory Form has actually provided a platform for the next step to be taken. When there's...

...declaration in the statute, was no more than what should be, or was the law in any case, but the fact that it has been articulated in statutory form has allows legal argument and conceptual argument to take the next step. So I actually did learn that. Yes, and on that point of intimate partner sexual violence, it's something that a rose has been focusing on and and the research that you've both done has contributed greatly to that. So we're really pleased to be able to to add that to the synthesis that we're about to release in another form, which is adding what you've just contributed. We're going to wrap up here, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to each highlight a key takeaway from the research before we finish up. Well, one of the things that I thought about when you know, having spent a very long period of time analyzing a particular person's story and putting a framework of expertise around it so we can see it for what it is and understand the violence. I guess my my key thing walking away as that none of this would be necessary if we empathetically entered woman's lives and tried to understand what they look like from their perspective, because the evidence that Stella and I have used in this case, all of that was there in court. So, for example, Chamori Leana Guy said over and over again and court, you have not left your rebews if you have to seek their permission to go, and then they've set conditions that mean you you'll be under their surveillance for the rest of your life. But she wasn't hurt. She was heard as having left, having achieved safety and returning. So I think that's a big thing for me yes, we're doing a lot of work and providing expertise and explaining, providing explanations and but if we just tried to imagine empathetically what it was like to live that life, I don't think we need to do any of this. Guess I find it hard to take to say one take away. But I think one thing that has occurred to me during this project and that I find comfort in actually is the real is a realization that we are actually on a very long journey. This is a very long project and I thought I was thinking of it as a long journey when I thought, Oh, this is a hundred year journey, but I've decided that this is a thousand new journey, that we're on a thousand new journey and far from making me feel despondent about that, I actually see that each of these little tiny nudges are actually moving in a good direction. So I think that's what I take away, and I'm not sure that I'm advocating that everybody does now. I think that's really important because I think I think you know, the slowness of change could be a cause for despondency, but I think what you just said really articulates the importance of why we need to keep going. Thank you both very much. This research has made it an incredible contribution to both the legal sector but also to the way in which we understand the dynamics of intimate partner violence more broadly. So thank you and I do look forward to understanding your next project which does take this another step forward, because and rows will really would love to promote that. So thank you both very much.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (5)