Domestic abuse convictions are high in terms of successful trial outcomes (roughly 74-75% of prosecutions result in a conviction). However, the overall conviction rate relative to the massive volume of reported crimes is very low, with only about 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse incidents ultimately reaching a conviction.
According to AI the conviction rate for domestic abuse is low overall, but cases that end up in court generally result in a successful prosection.
So where is the evidence domestic abuse is so common that it needs judges to be "trained" in the issue?
What if I was a cynic and I looked at this data and said all I can see is a lot of unproven accusations which because we have presumption of innocence under Human Rights Law could at the extreme end mean a lot of false accusations?
Shouldn't the evidence dictate the outcome of any trial and not judge / judiciary "training"?
What is a "just outcome" in a trial if the evidence is not there to secure a conviction???
https://youtu.be/Nh99kASxDLo - It appears the training is much needed….
Domestic abuse convictions are high in terms of successful trial outcomes (roughly 74-75% of prosecutions result in a conviction). However, the overall conviction rate relative to the massive volume of reported crimes is very low, with only about 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse incidents ultimately reaching a conviction.
According to AI the conviction rate for domestic abuse is low overall, but cases that end up in court generally result in a successful prosection.
So where is the evidence domestic abuse is so common that it needs judges to be "trained" in the issue?
What if I was a cynic and I looked at this data and said all I can see is a lot of unproven accusations which because we have presumption of innocence under Human Rights Law could at the extreme end mean a lot of false accusations?
Shouldn't the evidence dictate the outcome of any trial and not judge / judiciary "training"?
What is a "just outcome" in a trial if the evidence is not there to secure a conviction???
My take away from this is if we train judges we get more prosecutions, because surely that is a "just outcome" in a trial right, a prosecution?
This is why we must never abolish trial by jury