A crime that won't go away

Welcome to the Amicus Curiae newsletter about some of the cases and culture at Dumbarton Sheriff Court, and beyond. Reports from the sheriffdom cover crimes and people from Helensburgh and Lomond east through Clydebank and the western edge of Glasgow.

The charity collective, which has a history of 40 years of saving women in the area, was at the frontline of trying to help tackle something that persistently puts West Dunbartonshire as the worst in Scotland.

Since the start of my career, I've worked to listen to women, to expose abusers and hold them to account. I will continue to do so.

Because even if Clydebank Women's Aid (CWA) had to announce their closure as of July 19, domestic abuse isn't disappearing from Dumbarton Sheriff Court.

Of the 54 cases I saw paperwork for on July 8, 20 of those involved domestic abuse.

These offences are overwhelmingly by men. There might be a handful of women, at most, in any given month. But I can go weeks without seeing a woman offending against a male partner.

It is such a clear gender-based problem that there is a Caledonian Men's Programme (CMP). If considered suitable, a criminal can be ordered to go through that for two years to change their behaviour.

Under section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, an offence can be aggravated "by involving abuse of your partner or ex-partner".

An assault, or a breach of the peace (now generally called a "section 38"), could be aggravated by it being against a partner or ex.

Verbally or physically attacking anyone is criminal and wrong. But the law acknowledges that attacking someone you might claim to "love" is a special level of wrong.

I have seen the aggravation deleted before - when it became clear to the Crown that two people weren't actually in a relationship.

And it can relate as much within a relationship to couples who have long split. If you were in a relationship 30 years ago and then turn up and abuse your ex, that can still be an aggravation.

One case last week was Thomas Gallagher in Clydebank. He threatened to murder his then partner. The particular incident also led to charges of having weapons in a public place.

He opened his tracksuit top to reveal to cops he had body armour on.

When it comes to sentencing, some people do get jailed. For some of the worst abusers I've seen, the jail time is not long enough.

If they get an alternative to custody, social work supervision or CMP might be used.

Regardless, a court is obliged to consider imposing a non-harassment order (NHO) to protect the victim (the "complainer" in legal terms). It's occasionally used in non-domestic cases, but is automatically considered for domestic abuse.

On July 8, Jordan Daldry pleaded guilty to having a knife in Dumbarton. But there were other cases that day related to repeated breaches of a NHO - he kept being found in the company of his partner or ex, despite a court order.

In one of the cases, there was an agreed meeting at West Dunbartonshire Council - the building immediately next to the court.

The couple arrived together. That's a breach of the NHO. Even if they were both invited to the joint meeting, the law and court orders remain fixed. And they're there for a reason.

Break NHO, get arrested. Appear in court, get bail. Break the NHO and you break bail at the same time. Suddenly that's two more crimes to the statistics. So it spirals.

And it's clear the partner or ex doesn't want the NHO restrictions, but Daldry's solicitor said no application had been made to lift it. So it remains in place.

An NHO is meant to be an added layer of protection to someone after surviving abuse. I've never been in that position so I don't pretend to know what it feels like to know a violent ex won't contact you for 12 months, two years, five years. It's rarely longer.

We all know of ex's who contact you out of the blue years later. How do you live in fear that an abuser could email you, call, friend request, turn up at your door, send a tiny bank transfer with an abusive reference. The NHO is meant to give some peace of mind.

I have heard horrible narratives in court.

The "narrative" - the agreed facts of a case when someone pleads guilty - can include the comments, the physical attacks, the emotional and psychological abuse, the control.

Some aspects can sound remarkably similar. Even identical. But each survivor of abuse is unique.

I could say "ach, another one, I won't write this up". A national newspaper once told me they weren't interested in a rape case because such cases were so common.

No. We have a problem. That is overwhelmingly clear. Ignoring it is not the answer. So I have to keep reporting gender-based violence.

And I know I'm only catching a fraction of cases. And we can't follow all cases, all the time. (I'll do a separate newsletter at some point about how difficult it is to keep tabs on cases.)

Reporters play just one part in exposing domestic abuse and, hopefully helping survivors and avoiding future victims.

But we are nothing compared to the amazing women who have run Clydebank Women's Aid and other such organisations. Though they may be gone, there will be help still available out there. I salute the work that has been done and will continue to be done.

If you need help in Scotland, the country’s 24 hour Domestic Abuse and Forced Marriage Helpline is available on on 0800 027 1234, you can email [email protected] or visit sdafmh.org.uk.

I get easily distracted by legal cases anywhere on the planet. They're fascinating for different reasons.

On July 4 I covered, remotely, the Court of Session in a petition for judicial review by Helensburgh Community Council against Argyll and Bute Council.

The fight is about the future of part of the waterfront of the town. The council wants to put a supermarket there, the community doesn't. In court, the council argued they could do what they liked with their land and it wasn't reviewable.

It reminded me of the US Supreme Court recently decided Donald Trump. He has argued, and they agreed, that the president has far more broad powers than anyone has previously interpreted. His decisions are above review, beyond question.

By contrast, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that sports body decisions COULD be reviewed.

South African runner Caster Semenya challenged eligibility rules imposed by World Athletics. The European Court said the Court of Arbitration for Sport had to face heightened scrutiny under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That's oversimplifying things of course. But sense a theme here?

When should you be able to question a decision about your community, your employment, your rights? What powers do governments or organisations have over you without question? They are complex legal questions but they do matter.

If you want to learn more about the mess of law the US Supreme Court is making, I recommend the the podcast Strict Scrutiny for a deep dive.