National Centre for Domestic Violence Logo

Please note that Internet Explorer is no longer a supported browser so we cannot guarantee the integrity of our website when using it. Please use an alternate browser like Edge or Chrome.

Access ASSIST Online Injunction Database

Click here to leave training feedback


Make a Referral Using the Form Below:


    *Fields required. By submitting a referral you agree to receive updates on the progress of your referral, as outlined in our Privacy Policy.

    Did I ask for it, then?

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Did I ask for it, then?


    The sheer degree of media attention focused on the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, which included me being asked to do a number of interviews, really got me thinking. What is so wrong with today’s society that a case involving serious domestic abuse alleged by both parties could play out on social media and media outlets as entertainment?

    The alleged victim of abuse found herself trolled on social media, received death threats and then had to try and justify herself to the whole world.

    As I said publicly and repeatedly, the issues raised by this phenomenon go well beyond the identities of the victim and the perpetrator in this high profile case. The fact that proceedings were-live streamed onto YouTube; that alleged victims were given no confidentiality on or off the television screen; and that newspapers reported globally on the most intimate details of their relationship without regard to the risk or repercussions to either party must mean, surely, that hundreds of thousands of victims and survivors of domestic abuse, in any of its forms, would now be asking themselves the question ‘Did I ask for it’?

    So, what do you think?

    I was watching the BBC1 television series ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ last week. The interesting, yet harrowing, genealogy of the actress Anna Maxwell Martin. From 1898 to 1906, her great grandfather was tried and convicted at least 4 times for assaulting his wife and sent to prison, once for 60 days. 1898 – 1906! On one of those occasions, he chose to represent himself legally and, as part of this, he cross-examined his wife and 14-year-old daughter in Court.

    My immediate thought was that our criminal and civil justice system would appear to have hardly moved at all in the last century and a quarter.

    Indeed, until almost the year 2000, a perpetrator was able to cross examine their alleged victim in a criminal Court, the practice only becoming illegal under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999). Yet, in the Family Courts, this is still the norm, although, thankfully, as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the practice is set to be abolished soon.

    Those of us who work in the domestic abuse sector know all too well of cases where perpetrators walk free from court. We also know of many cases where perpetrators of domestic abuse have chosen to continue their abuse by defending themselves and cross examining their victims. From my experience as an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA), this is one of the most traumatic and distressing things to witness in a family court.

    We have all read about judges, the world over and also in the UK, who have victim blamed by suggesting that women have ‘asked for it’ in rape trials – by being drunk or wearing a skirt that is too short.

    Researchers from the University of Surrey and Middlesex University, jointly conducted a study which was published in the British Journal of Psychology. They gave men and women interspersed quotes from British lad mags FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, as well as excerpts from interviews with convicted rapists.

    The participants were unable to identify – with any consistency – which statements came from magazines and which came from convicted rapists. What’s more, they found the quotes from the magazines slightly more derogatory than those from the convicted rapists.

    I regularly use this insight when facilitating Freedom Programmes as an example of how the society in which we live normalises the treatment of women as sexual objects, second class citizens, and possessions that should ‘do as they are told’….or face the consequences.

    As recently as 2017, the judge at a criminal trial allowed a violent and controlling husband to walk free from Court with a suspended 18-month sentence because the judge did not consider the victim to be ‘vulnerable’. Why? Because, in this case, the judge determined that the victim was an intelligent woman, with a network of friends who had gone to university and got a 2.1 and a Masters. Her husband had already pleaded guilty to beating his wife with a cricket bat and forced her to drink bleach, strangled her in public and told her to kill herself!

    Going back to the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, I witnessed at first hand the litany of misogynistic, abusive and degrading twitter conversations. The debates and conversations on social media reminded me of times gone by when people would gather in the village squares to watch people be hanged, drawn and quartered for entertainment.

    I am a survivor of domestic abuse. So many times, I have had people say to me “You don’t look like a battered woman.”

    So, I guess my question is this? How exactly should a ‘victim’ of domestic abuse look? How should they act? How should they be perceived? Are we supposed to conform to a stereotypical object of weakness – someone, say, who sits in the corner wearing oversized cardigans, crying all the time? There is a long-held myth about domestic abuse and violence; that it only happens to certain types of people.

    Does the fact that most victims and survivors of domestic abuse are generally well-rounded, intelligent, human beings with a sense of humour, who live their lives to the full and go out and perhaps have a drink, wear short skirts – often single-handedly raising children on their own as well as working full time – mean that they have asked for the abuse they have encountered?
    We, as a society, are surrounded, every day by stories such as I have mentioned, Court trials played out on social media and on our televisions. People are now determining – at a distance – other people’s honesty and integrity, people they don’t even know. How far have we, as a society come since 1906, when Anna Maxwell Martin’s great grandfather was convicted?

    It seems to me we are going backwards to a point where victims and survivors of domestic abuse and violence will surely be too afraid to report the crimes perpetrated against them for fear of being ridiculed, disbelieved, trolled on social media.

    As a Community Interest Company which supports thousands of victims and survivors of domestic abuse every year, NCDV will never be swayed by, nor tolerate, this deeply prejudiced treatment of human beings – which is why our mission remains to make domestic abuse socially unacceptable.

    Sadly, we all have a long way to go.

    Sharon Bryan
    Head Of Partnerships & Development Of Domestic Abuse Services

    Share This Article

    Reading Time: 2 minutes
    Reading Time: 2 minutes
    Reading Time: 2 minutes

    By Fiona Bawden, Times Online (8th May 2007)

    “Steve Connor, a student at City Law School, is a man on a mission. Six years ago he was a fairly directionless 27-year-old. Today, as well as taking the Bar Vocational Course, he is chairman of the National Centre for Domestic Violence, a ground-breaking organisation that he dragged into existence after a friend could not get legal help to protect her from an abusive partner.

    Connor’s route to the Bar has been circuitous. In 2001 he returned from a year in Australia (he says that he would not dignify describing it as a gap year), and took a job as a process server in South London. The job (“I just saw it advertised in the paper”) was not quite as dull as it sounds. On one occasion he was threatened with a machete, on another, he was nearly stabbed by a man he had arranged to meet on Clapham Common to serve with a non-molestation order: “He’d seemed really friendly on the phone…”

    The turning point in his life came when a friend, who was being abused by her partner, turned to him for support. Connor went with her to the police. She did not want to press criminal charges so the police suggested that she visit a solicitor to take out a civil injunction. “We must have seen 12 solicitors in a morning. We just went from one to the next to the next to the next. Everyone was very eager to help until we sat down to fill in the forms for the legal aid means test,” he says. The woman, who had a small child, did not qualify for public funding. But, Connor says, her financial situation as it appeared on paper did not bear any relation to her financial situation in reality. “She had a part-time job and she and her partner owned their home. Yet she didn’t have any money. Her boyfriend was very controlling and controlled all the money; he kept the chequebooks and didn’t let her have access to the bank account.”

    The injustice of the situation got under Connor’s skin. “I just couldn’t believe that there was no help available to people who did not qualify for public funds but could not afford to pay.

    I just kept feeling that this must be able to be sorted if only someone would address it.”That “someone” turned out to be him.

    In 2002, thanks entirely to Connor’s doggedness, the London Centre for Domestic Violence was formed. It started out with him and a friend, but is now a national organisation, covering 27 counties, and has helped approximately 10,000 victims last year to take out injunctions against their partners.

    NCDV now has nine full-time staff, 12 permanent volunteers and has trained over 5000 law and other students as McKenzie Friends to accompany unrepresented victims into court. We have also trained over 8000 police officers in civil remedies available regarding domestic violence. The National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) has branches in London, Guildford and Manchester and is on track to have branches in 16 areas within the next two years.

    NCDV specialises exclusively in domestic violence work and could be characterised as a cross between McDonald’s and Claims Direct. The high degree of specialisation means that its processes are streamlined: clients can be seen quickly and the work is done speedily and cheaply. “Sometimes, we will have one of our trained McKenzie Friends at a court doing 10 applications in one day,” Connor says.

    Clients are not charged for the service. NCDV staff take an initial statement: clients who qualify for legal aid are referred to a local firm; those that don’t get free help from the centre itself. It runs on a shoestring, heavily reliant on volunteers and capping staff salaries at £18,000 a year.

    Steve expects to qualify as a barrister this summer and hopes that having a formal legal qualification will give the centre added clout. “We are already acknowledged as experts and consulted at a high level, so I thought it would be helpful if I could back that up by being able to say I’m a barrister,” he says. He is just about to complete a one-year full-time BVC course at the City Law School (formerly the Inns of Court Law School) and, all being well, should be called to the Bar in July. Although Connor sees his long-term future as a barrister, he says that he has no immediate plans to practise. “I want to get NCDV running on a fully national level. Then I may take a step back and have a career at the Bar.”