A woman has been taken to hospital after being forced at a court hearing to confront her ex-partner, whom she accuses of rape and abuse.
Charlotte Brodman, an award-winning human rights lawyer representing the woman, said she was not only subjected to "manipulation of her sanity, abuse and trauma" by her ex-partner, but also during the process of going through the family courts to demand justice.
Dr. Brodman won an appeal against the way the woman was treated, with Supreme Court Justice Bell ruling last December that the trial's original findings were no longer valid.
Judge Bell ruled that a new trial should be held because the judge who initially received the file had not handled the case properly - saying: "It appears at times that the judge has downplayed the seriousness of the allegations of sexual abuse."
Speaking about the case, Ms. Brodman explained that her client, whose name we cannot mention, has accused her partner of rape, domestic violence and coercive control.
Dr. Brodman said: “There were no special procedures, she was exchanging looks with her alleged rapist. She was attending the hearing via video call because she is self-isolating for health reasons, and he was in the courtroom… This is completely against the law, special measures should be taken for cases of domestic violence and rape.They should be used in every case of alleged rape, domestic violence and coercive control -it should be applied automatically so that the accused and the victim do not see each other...the lady was a really weak victim and too afraid of court proceedings.Partly because of the judge's error in Not realizing that this weak plaintiff needs special measures."
Dr. Brodman noted that the original trial judge said her client appeared to be predisposed and "distracted", but counsel cautioned that these were common symptoms of trauma - and that the situation was exacerbated by her having to look at her alleged abuser.
The lawyer added, "She said she was having difficulty breathing at the end of the evidence clause, so she was taken to the hospital and listened to the evidence from the hospital bed... They should have postponed the case until she recovered physically and psychologically enough to follow up on the case later."
Judge Pell's ruling from the Supreme Court stated: "Ms. JK gave her testimony on the first day by video call, not a special procedure of the court but because the woman was self-isolating for health reasons. Later that day, after she submitted After her testimony, her health worsened, and she was taken to the hospital due to an episode of insulin deficiency related to diabetes.”
Dr. Brodman indicated that the doctor who follows up on her client, who takes insulin injections to control her diabetes, said that her anxiety re-emerged as a direct result of her having to testify, but despite her ordeal, the judge reviewed the evidence.
read more
This section contains related articles, placed in the Related Nodes field.
The lawyer criticized the original trial judge for deeming the comments allegedly made by the man to his partner simply "inappropriate words" and a "marital altercation". The woman alleges that his mistreatment of her included the use of words and phrases such as: “dirty,” “fat,” “tramp,” “stupid vile,” “worthless,” “fat whore,” “die you damned,” “hate you bitch.” "I will win you in court, you motherfucker", "Even your despicable father doesn't want you."
Judge Bell contested the judge's position in his ruling, saying: "I am inclined to the opinion that the judge was belittling the importance of such words...However we look at these words, they are cruel and insulting, but when we look at them in the context of the various other behaviors I have identified Ms. JK, it is clearly complementary to controlling and coercive behaviour."
Dr. Broadman argued that her client's experience was "a stark example of failures in family court", admonishing that the woman was deeply afraid of court proceedings.
Dr. Brodman added: “It's systemic hatred in the system...There is a lack of understanding of how rape, domestic violence and coercive control affect victims. Judges need comprehensive training in the dynamics of domestic violence, rape, control and trauma – it is a really complex issue.”
A major government review of family courts published in June 2020 found that "victims of domestic violence were "ignored, overlooked, or disbelieved" - prompting the government to pledge sweeping reform.
It is reported that between two and three women are killed every week by their partners or ex-partners in England and Wales. While one in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives - domestic violence ranks higher among repeated abuse than any other crime.
Dr. Adrian Barnett, who has specialized in family law while working as a lawyer for more than 30 years, told The Independent she was pleased with Judge Bell's decision.
"This is an excellent and important ruling. Judge Bell has identified fundamental problems in the system related to the manner in which the original hearing was conducted."
Dr. Barnett, a senior lecturer in law who specializes in domestic violence and family courts, noted that Judge Bell drew attention to how difficult it is for a woman to face her alleged abuser.
“This is something judges really need to think about – even in remote hearings. In fact, it is easier for an alleged offender to intimidate the victim in remote hearings by constantly staring at them… There is no space and space in Courtroom - the person is much closer to the screen, and unless the judges watch very carefully, they may not even notice what is going on.. Some of the women involved in family court proceedings told me this... One of the main issues that the judgment highlighted was that it was clear "A woman is a weak witness. Ultimately, it is the judge's responsibility to comply with the rules regarding vulnerable witnesses. But he has not."