Clause 4 - Extension of Part 4 of 1996 Act to non-cohabiting couples
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 31 is a variation because we too have concerns about the clause as drafted. The Bill uses the phrase
''which is or was of significant duration''
in respect of a personal relationship. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that we need a definition of the word ''significant''. Do we have to wait for case law to build up just because the Minister in the other place seems to think that one-night stands should not be covered?
It could be that any violence in such a situation is covered by other legislation, such as the law on assault or rape. However, we are talking about an in-between area. Some people have short but nevertheless very intense relationships. The problem we are facing is that if a person—it is usually a man—abuses, he does not do it in only one situation but will repeat it time and again with other partners. They are rarely one-off instances; it is part of the character.
I am concerned that there could be some sort of gentleman capable of attracting women and getting them to move in with him for short periods of time but during that time, which may not be regarded as being of significant duration, having an abusive relationship and then moving on to the next one. It is very difficult to catch up with a person in such circumstances. We would prefer the wording
''such significance as to justify the making of an order'',
because it would give the court a little flexibility to take such situations into account.