future relationships & a police caution

Oldernotwiser

AnnieM wrote: »

I would hope a jury member would be objective, and I don't feel ONW's 'no smoke without fire' attitude was one you would hope to see from a jury-member.
.

My attitude was certainly not "no smoke without fire"!

I said that the OP hadn't said specifically that he was innocent of violent behaviour and I felt that he was playing with words (ie "no proof") rather than asserting this fact. I must also add that he still hasn't said that he didn't assault his wife, but rather wrote
"i do admit we had a row (as couples do) but nothing to the extreme she was accusing me of...i was accused of beating her to the point she had bruises", which still doesn't sound to me like someone who hasn't laid a finger on his wife!

Having survived several violent relationships myself, I know how many men don't think violence counts unless blood has been spilt or bones broken. "I only gave her a smack" or "I just pushed her off" are the sort of things that abusers will say as excuses for their assaults.

AnnieM_3

I don't know if him saying 'I'm innocent' would make people believe he was or not. I guess only the OP and his ex know the whole truth...

Triggles

Just a few points. If this was a DV assault, the police are not required to call in a doctor or a female officer, depending on the situation. They do, however, generally need both for sexual assault. Just because you were asleep when the officers showed up doesn't mean nothing happened - it means there was a delay in calling the police - and you did state that you had a row. Sorry, but even a "crap" solicitor won't advise you to take a caution unless there's something there. I will admit that I also noted the way in which the post was worded (noting "no proof" and "not to the extreme" comments) which tend to give the impression that the poster is skirting the issue of actual guilt.

I think the fact that you were awarded custody of your child versus her actions and your caution would carry a lot of weight with most women.

This literally means nothing. Years ago, I went out with a man who had custody of his daughter, and repeatedly told me what a nutter his ex was. I later found out he was a controlling violent person when he assaulted me, and that his ex literally left with nothing but the clothes on her back because she was so terrified of him that she couldn't stay any longer. He never physically harmed his daughter, but I witnessed numerous behaviours that will most likely damage that poor child for years to come, but while I reported it to the police at the same time as the assault, I had no proof and his ex was terrified to speak to the police about it. Even though the assault was DV, as we were dating, he still (to my knowledge) has custody of his child, as there was no proof that he had harmed her in any way. That's the way the system works.

Obviously none of us were there, but honestly, if I was in a serious relationship with someone and found out they had a DV caution, I would have to think long and hard about whether or not I wanted to continue the relationship, especially if they withheld that information from me. But that's just my opinion.

Janepig

blingboy wrote: »

Thank you to all for all the comments.

My ex made a police complaint about me which resulted in me being arrested. The complaint she made was quiet disturbing, although when i look back on the matter and talk to some people they say the police did not follow procedure. i.e. no female office was called or doctor or anyone just 2 male officers to see a woman who claimed all sorts of rubbish. in fact when the officers called that night i was fast asleep upstairs!

anyway yes i would have fighted my way to prove my innocence but i was torn at the time by having 2 family members who were ill and needed my help and a new demanding job. My solicitor assured me that everything was going okay - after several hearings of the cps wasting my time each time stating "they need to interview the officers more" - what more i had no idea what was going on. The time of work was costing me money (& legal fees) and my health. Then the solicitor said best way to get your life back and end this is to accept a caution which i was told is a legal "slap on the wrist" and all will be okay.
But when i look at a future relationship now its something i dont want to haunt me, hence i am prepared to let a future partner read all the legal papers i have filed. But i dont want this to scare them from me.

I am not a abusive person and dont like DV. In many ways i felt a victim of DV from my previous partner who used to swear and shout at me so much.

What is strange despite all the allegations made against me at the time to be such a bad person, yet when we divorced i was given full custody of our child! She was only interested in the house and money in the bank.

i realise people on this forum dont know me and all the facts of the case but any comments good or bad welcome....as all i want to do is get on with my life and be happy with a new family.

Errata - only when i was receiving the caution - one goes in the criminal database - no one told me that in court!

Imo, that is the most sensible thing. Because if I was entering into a relationship with someone who told me what you have said happened, I'd be wary and worried that I was only getting their version of events. By reading in black and white what actually occurred, then they can be sure they haven't just got your slant on things.

And I agree with triggles about the doctor and the woman officer business - not standard practice in my experience, as often there is no medical evidence to put before the Court if it's a very minor assault that required no medical attention. As I said in my previous post, I think your "crap" solicitor may have done you a favour, although it may not feel like it to you.

Jxx

blingboy

Janepig wrote: »

Imo, that is the most sensible thing. Because if I was entering into a relationship with someone who told me what you have said happened, I'd be wary and worried that I was only getting their version of events. By reading in black and white what actually occurred, then they can be sure they haven't just got your slant on things.

And I agree with triggles about the doctor and the woman officer business - not standard practice in my experience, as often there is no medical evidence to put before the Court if it's a very minor assault that required no medical attention. As I said in my previous post, I think your "crap" solicitor may have done you a favour, although it may not feel like it to you.

Jxx

Thanks for your opinions.
After the whole process i met a lady who used to work as an oncall doctor to help with police DV cases. She told me from her experience and from reading the case notes, a female officer and doctor should have been called to the house. As if what my ex said was true there should have been a femal officer present rather than numerous male officers siting in the house and if her "injuries" were true they should have taken some action or even photos.

Anyway i can only look forward in my life not backwards, thanks.

Janepig

blingboy wrote: »

Thanks for your opinions.
After the whole process i met a lady who used to work as an oncall doctor to help with police DV cases. She told me from her experience and from reading the case notes, a female officer and doctor should have been called to the house. As if what my ex said was true there should have been a femal officer present rather than numerous male officers siting in the house and if her "injuries" were true they should have taken some action or even photos.

Anyway i can only look forward in my life not backwards, thanks.

I quite agree - if there are injuries then there should be photographs or written medical evidence to put before the Court. I've even seen photos of "injuries" put before Court where the victim looks nothing other than puffy from crying. And that's not me being unsympathetic to the victim, far from it, just pointing out what can be considered bad enough to take a photo of.

Jxx

Money_maker

Triggles wrote: »

This literally means nothing. Years ago, I went out with a man who had custody of his daughter, and repeatedly told me what a nutter his ex was. I later found out he was a controlling violent person when he assaulted me, and that his ex literally left with nothing but the clothes on her back because she was so terrified of him that she couldn't stay any longer. He never physically harmed his daughter, but I witnessed numerous behaviours that will most likely damage that poor child for years to come, but while I reported it to the police at the same time as the assault, I had no proof and his ex was terrified to speak to the police about it. Even though the assault was DV, as we were dating, he still (to my knowledge) has custody of his child, as there was no proof that he had harmed her in any way. That's the way the system works.

Obviously none of us were there, but honestly, if I was in a serious relationship with someone and found out they had a DV caution, I would have to think long and hard about whether or not I wanted to continue the relationship, especially if they withheld that information from me. But that's just my opinion.

My god this is frightening! No way I would leave my child with someone like that, even if I was beaten to a pulp for taking her.

blingboy

Money_maker wrote: »

My god this is frightening! No way I would leave my child with someone like that, even if I was beaten to a pulp for taking her.

i thhink the police and cps are twisted in the cases they go after - in terms of they go after the easy people to catch rather than difficult cases.

this gp friend who used to work for police on DV cases told me of a case she was called at....woman was left in a very poor state,bruised and been raped by a bf. but the police took no action not even an arrest! they just told woman to seek legal advice.
its a shocking world out there