Domestic Violence and legal aid.

www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons...fings/snha-03989.pdf

"1 What is domestic violence?
There is no statutory definition of domestic violence, and the term covers a range of behaviour, much but not all of which is criminal. Until recently, there were a number of different “official” definitions. However, the Government has produced a common non-statutory definition for use across departments, which is:
"Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of sexuality.”
.........................................

Not sure if this guidance
www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cls_main/D...-_domestic_abuse.pdf
still applies but it's referred to from the LSC website.

Discussions ongoing:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2010...st/681/68108.htm#a37
88. If the Government does insist on retaining domestic violence as a criterion for legal aid eligibility it should adopt a definition of domestic abuse which explicitly incorporates non-physical abuse and we welcome the Minister's statement that he will consider this matter further in light of the consultation responses. Further to broadening the definition of domestic abuse, the Government should ensure that undertakingsas to future conduct rather than orders of the court are sufficient to confer eligibility.

Definition and
Orders vs Undertakings:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2010...st/681/68108.htm#a37

84. Witnesses had further reservations about the definition used of domestic abuse, relating to the consultation paper's apparent requirement for injunctive action to have been taken in order to qualify for legal aid. Sir Nicholas Wall told us that "there is a perverse incentive, it seems to me, in the proposals...that people will be obliged to take out injunctive proceedings against a former spouse. They will be obliged to litigate in order to open the gateway to legal aid. As you know only too well, so much domestic abuse is hidden. It is not brought into the public domain. It is not brought forward into police action. It is not brought into prosecution". [92] The FLBA argued that "proof of domestic violence as an act of physical harm is a crude and inapposite test for the grant of public funds" and said that "many women who fear domestic violence may not seek injunctive relief (it should not be overlooked that the perpetrator will usually make sure that there is no opportunity for the non-violent parent or the children to speak freely) but would nonetheless wish to have support in resolving issues concerning the children."[93]

85. Furthermore, even where an injunction is sought, cases are often resolved by means of an undertaking as to future conduct, rather than by an order which, as the Association of Lawyers for Children told us, "protects the applicant, but involves no finding of the court as to whether or not the respondent has been responsible for the behaviour complained of." They point out that this approach can save time and money and reduce levels of tension and that the unintended consequences of making it necessary to obtain an order would be that:

* Most cases will be contested by respondents in order to limit the adverse consequences upon them of findings in relation (particularly) to arrangements for the division of parenting time;
* The Legal Aid fund will accordingly have to meet the much higher costs of contested domestic violence proceedings for the applicants, and there will be knock-on effects on other agencies;
* It is highly probable that many respondents will be able to demonstrate entitlement to public funding to meet the allegations against them.[94]

Sir Nicholas Wall was also critical of the proposal in this respect, telling us that "most injunctions these days are dealt with by way of undertakings. A man will frequently say, "I undertake not to assault or molest in the future, irrespective of my conduct in the past." That undertaking is accepted by the court and the case proceeds on the basis of that undertaking. That will no longer be possible."[95]