The Global Pandemic and Domestic Violence

Isabella Da Re assesses the human rights implications of the UK government’s response to a surge in the reporting of domestic violence during “lockdown”.

With the global pandemic raging globally, some of the hidden victims of this phenomenon are those trapped at home with their abusers; namely, the victims of domestic violence, whose lives are characterised by the infringement of their basic human rights.

So, what is domestic violence? The Istanbul Convention was drafted to specifically tackle the issue of domestic violence in Europe and defines it as ‘acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim’.[1] Mirroring this, the Domestic Violence Bill 2020 proposes a statutory definition of domestic violence in UK law, which is twofold; it addresses the meaning of abuse along with the relationship between victim and perpetrator.[2] The notion of coercive control is at the heart of the domestic violence definitions. Evan Stark explains that this is a behavioural pattern which seeks to limit the victim’s liberties, freedoms and self, thus going beyond the bodily harm by violating their human rights.[3]

Case comment: AM (Zimbabwe) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Helen Taylor discusses a recent Supreme Court case which raised a host of legal and ethical issues, including the fraught question of the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights

On 29 April 2020 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Appellant was a Zimbabwean national who has been living in the UK since 2006. Following a string of criminal offences and two spells in prison, he was placed under a deportation order. The Appellant challenged the deportation order; he argued that to send him to Zimbabwe would breach his right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment, which is guaranteed under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant is HIV positive and the anti-retroviral medication that he takes is not available in Zimbabwe. He argued that he would not be able to receive the appropriate medication in Zimbabwe and that this would render the UK in breach of its ECHR obligations, due to the suffering that would ensue from the lack of medication.

Female Genital Mutilation in the UK

Harjas Dhillon provides insight into the challenges of both prosecuting FGM, and protecting against it through prevention.

FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is a harmful procedure that involves intentional cutting or injury to the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons.[1] It has no health benefits; rather, it causes both immediate and longer term pain, bleeding and infection. Victims’ suffering can extend indefinitely into their sexual and reproductive lives, causing complications in childbirth. The House of Commons has categorised it as an ‘extreme form of child abuse’, acknowledging that it is most often carried out on babies and girls up to the age of 15, without anaesthetic or antisepsis, using knives, scissors, glass or razor blades.[2] It is a severe violation of human rights, and the WHO has identified it as a breach of: the rights of children; a person’s right to health, security and physical integrity; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the right to life (in cases where it leads to death).[3] The Family Division court has emphasised that all forms of this mutilation fall under the definition of torture in respect of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[4]