Domestic

UserName01_2

Also I don't think its a case of the judge believing me over my ex partner. He is innocent until proven guilty. He can't be convicted just because they think or believe he commited the crime. It has to be proved he did it. So there must have been some proof, the police in charge of the case said he had no cuts on his hands during the interview (which I now understand why as car glass shatters) but she said the officer who arrested him noted down that he had red swollen knuckles. That will have been the evidence as well as his solicitor saying he seen me and was in the same area (although states I followed him). He also no commented all through the police interview which will have harmed his defence in court.

Yorkie1

Thank you for coming back and updating us. I am so pleased that you had the strength to go through with the court case, that you had special measures to help you with that, and that he was convicted.

Do not underestimate the impact that this can have on your self-belief over time, and on him - you have stood up to him. Make sure you give yourself sufficient credit.

I must just correct some incorrect statements about the criminal justice process though.

The prosecution is legally obliged to disclose all its evidence to the defence. The defence is obliged to give a general indication to the prosecution of the nature of the defence and what it takes issue with from the prosecution case; it is also supposed to identify to the court and the prosecution any witnesses it intends to call. However, it is not obliged (and never does, except for expert evidence) to provide the prosecution with copies of the defence evidence.

Next, although you are entitled to see a copy of your own statement, you are absolutely not entitled to see a copy of the rest of the evidence in the case in advance of giving evidence. Whatever the police officer told you, they were completely wrong.

Similarly, the prosecutor is absolutely not allowed to discuss the evidence with you before you go into court. They are not being sneaky - it is against their professional rules as it is coaching the witness.

You are right that the court has to be sure that he is guilty before it can convict. However, you appear to think that there had to evidence other than your own in order to make the court sure. This isn't right. The court can, and often does, convict where it is essentially word against word. One person is often a more convincing person than the other in the witness box, and don't underestimate how powerful this can be in court. The reddening on the knuckles might have supported the prosecution, but on its own it wouldn't have been enough. You would have been the deciding factor.

Compensation will have been set by the court; they have guidelines and are likely to have followed these in setting the level of compo.

Court costs - these will be the costs of the prosecution. He will have been ordered to pay a contribution towards these if costs were awarded. The court doesn't make an order about his own costs - as others have said, he will have had his own solicitor, either funded by legal aid or by himself. He won't have had the duty solicitor for a trial.

Restraining order - it is entirely appropriate to write to the prosecution and ask whether a restraining order was sought (if not, why not), and why one wasn't granted if it was sought. The court has a duty to give reasons if one was applied for and not granted.

Hope this clears up a few things.

The most important thing, though, is to congratulate yourself for getting through this. You stood up to him and showed him that he cannot bully you into submission. You stood up to his solicitor and held your own despite your fears. This is massive for you and allow yourself to take full credit.

Good luck with the ongoing medical issues.

UserName01_2

I got a copy of my own statement just before I gave my evidence. I did not need to read through it again (even though it was 5 pages long) as everything I have stated was the truth so very easily to remember what happened on the day of the incident. I believe I was not allowed a copy of my statment any sooner than on the day of the case because it is 'restricted once complete'. I am sure my ex and his solicitor got a copy of my statement when he was arrested and BEFORE he was questioned which may be right but I think it is wrong as it gives them a chance to defend it and come up with lies.

I did not think I would be allowed to know anything from the defence side so was quite surprised when the call handler's, police & Sargent told me he no commented all through the interview, had a duty solicitor with him during questioning and did not have a hand injury.

I was also surprised when the prosecution asked me if I had sent any cards and told me that it will be one question asked by the defence solicitor. I did not think he was allowed to tell me. This is why I think he was sneaky, as if he was allowed to tell me that then he should have told me other questions I am likely to be asked. He was explaining to me what type of questions I would be asked and one of my family members stepped in and said something like 'he will make you out to be a liar and turn the story round' but the prosecutor wasn't happy and denied that this would be the way the defence solicitor speaks to me when infact it was true but he was much worse than I expected.

The only evidence I had was the damage to my car and my injuries which were both noted by two different officers and the eye infirmary so there were three statements plus mine. My ex no commented all through the police interview and had red swollen knuckles so was charged. I would agree with both the Police and Sargent that it was my word against his. He could have denied being anyway near the area at the time of the incident but his solicitor turned it around and said it was me following him so I think this gave more evidence to go on. Since he pleaded not guilty three times I would have thought he would of denied being anywhere near the area at the time, maybe he would have walked free if he did say this. I think the solicitor was the duty solicitor that he had with him in the police interview and not his own as they can represent their clients in court and on trial.

I did not ask for a restraining order but I did expect an order put on him at sentencing. It must have something to do with him not breaching his bail conditions. I did feel much safer with the bail conditions, now I don't feel safe at all because I do believe he will still approach me if I see him out anywhere but would not phone, email, text etc as that would be evidence on my side.


I broke down whilst sitting in the witness room waiting to give my evidence. I hadn't slept or ate for days so was exhausted. I was shaking and said I can't do it, I don't want to see him. Then I was told that video link was granted which was a huge relief. I am also pleased that there was a bit of delay before the trial started as it gave me time to calm down and relax. I done much better than I thought I would have, no tears during giving my evidence and was very relaxed and calm sitting in the seat. If the video link had not been granted I don't think I'd of made it to the court room and if I did, I would have broke down and walked out. My family said he didn't take his eyes off the screen while I was giving my evidence, he must have been cursing me for taking him to court. I was asked how the incident has affected me so I said I have lost my confidence, scared to go out alone, scared to answer my door and bascially living in fear. I am pleased I didn't have to see him as I would imagine he was so happy that I have been affected by him. He is probably still laughing as he has getting off lightly but if he bothers me again or assualts someone else I don't think he will be as lucky.

Yorkie1

You are going to have to draw a line underneath your constant analysis of the evidence. From what you have described, the court process has been conducted properly according to the rules of court, and he has rightly been convicted.

I very much doubt he is laughing at you. He has a criminal conviction and he was unable to control you - you went to court and stood up to him despite his self-belief that you would either fail to attend or not be convincing.

Speak to womens' aid about the possibility of an injunction or other order to prevent him contacting you.

However, if he does contact you then just tell him that you do not want any further contact. You've done the hard part by standing up to him once, you can do it again.

If he starts having a go at you for the court case, then report it to the police - this is potentially a further criminal offence. Just ring 999.

You can build your life up from here, with the help of womens' aid or other support organisations. It will take time but try to look forward.