Assessment of domestic violence should not be culture sensitive – Jacqueline Roach

13 June 2015 by

Domestic_violence ChildrenRe A (A Child; Wardship; Fact : Finding : Domestic Violence [2015] EWHC 1598 (Fam) – read judgment

This recent domestic violence case involving a child and the comments made by Mrs Justice Pauffley have been exciting the interest of both the media those agencies involved in child protection, such as the NSPCC.

Background facts

The parents met in 2004 and were married in India in January 2005.   They travelled to England in 2006 on six month visas.   They became ‘over stayers’ when those visas expired and they decided not to return.   They lived in a series of addresses with other families.

In June 2007 their only child, A, was born.

It was the mother’s case that after about three months the marriage became unhappy – a situation which continued until the final separation in 2013.   The father, by contrast, maintained they were very happy until about 2011.

At all events, in January 2013 the mother left the marital home for a few weeks and went to stay with a friend in the same street.   At about that time, divorce proceedings were commenced and there was an attempt at salvaging the marriage with the assistance of a counselling organisation.   The mother maintains, but the father denies, that she moved out because he beat and kicked her out of the house.   According to the fathers evidence, the mother returned to the family home in early March.

On 12 March 2013, a ticket was purchased for the mother to fly alone to India on 8 April.

The mother made a number of allegations of domestic violence against the father and that he had been abusive to her through a series of texts and WhatsApp messages. The judge was ‘quite certain that from early on in the marriage, as the mother claims, there was real unhappiness caused by the father’s actual violence’ and that the texts and other messages ‘reveal a man with absolutely no respect for the mother of his child’.

Proceedings in court

So far, so uncontroversial. It is the following passage when looking at allegation made by A against his father of physical assault that interest is aroused.

I do not believe there was punitively harsh treatment of A of the kind that would merit the term physical abuse. Proper allowance must be made for what is, almost certainly, a different cultural context. Within many communities newly arrived in this country, children are slapped for misbehaviour in a way which first excites the interest of child protection professionals. In this instance on the basis of his ABE interview, A did not appear to have suffered more than sadness and transient pain from what was done to him.

It is clear from the judgment that Pauffley J did not believe much of what the father said in evidence. She described being ‘troubled by the father’s ability to lie when the situation as he saw it, called for deceit’.  But she accepted much of what both the mother and A said. Therefore the father’s assertions that he had simply ‘slapped’ or tapped’ A as opposed to A’s allegation that he had been hit with a belt must be placed in this context.


If it was indeed accepted by Pauffley J that A had been hit with a belt by his father on his back and his legs, that it hurt and it left marks I cannot see how it can be said this does not amount to ‘punitively harsh treatment’. I am puzzled by what is meant by

proper allowance must be made for what is almost certainly, a different cultural context.

Are we to take it from this that if a child is from a community where corporal punishment using a belt is acceptable to some but by no means all in the community, that we as a society should tolerate that treatment of that particular child in a way we would not if the child were from a different community or cultural heritage?

There also seems to be an implied criticism of child protection professionals where it is said

within many communities newly arrived, children are slapped and hit for misbehaviour in a way which at first excites the interest of child protection professionals.

The implied criticism is of overreaction in face of a cultural norm. There are many cultural norms which when looked at objectively must be perceived as harmful. Female genital mutilation is a cultural norm in many of the newly arrived and even the more established immigrant communities in the UK yet we have taken (long overdue) steps to address it being practiced in the UK through the introduction of legislation. This comment which no doubt sought to introduce a cultural context into the physical abuse suffered by A carries with it the danger of providing an excuse for hitting and marking a child with a belt when this treatment should be not acceptable in any circumstances.

Instead we should be concentrating on what this has meant to A. According to the judge he did not appear to have suffered more than ‘sadness and transient pain’. I have to wonder whether this conclusion which immediately follows the comment about the actions and attitudes of ‘newly arrived communities’ derives from an assumption that for A this treatment was less harmful because this is what happens in his community. Even if this is the case why must it be assumed that for A even though the pain may indeed be transient, the emotional harm caused by being hit with a belt by your parent is any less keenly felt, that the fear of being hit again is any less acute and that the confusion caused to a child of this age of being harmed by a supposedly loving parent is any less damaging.

Pauffley J looks to A’s presentation when visited by the local authority where it was stated that A ‘was observed to be a happy and contented child as well as very comfortable with his father’. We in this profession all have experience of cases where a child presents as ‘happy and contented’ belying the opposite of what is actually going on in the home. Or, conversely A may well have been happy and contented at the time he was seen but he certainly was not when he had his ABE interview and this child described himself as ‘sad.. but I’m a little brave..I’m not scared of him…but normally I’m sad.”

Every child’s cultural heritage is important. It is part of what makes them who they are. But finally they are children and the way they experience the full gamut of human emotions including pain, fear, sadness, joy and love is invariably universal. When we start approaching physical assault through some sort of cultural prism we do A and children like him a disservice. One can be culturally sensitive whilst at the same time firmly keeping in mind that abuse and the effects of it knows no such sensitivity.

Jacqueline Roach specialises in public and private law children cases at 1 Crown Office Row Brighton




  1. Something that slipped past me on my reading of the case was that the parents arrived in England in 2006 and the incident of concern occurred in 2013, thus making the ‘newly arrived’ portion of the offending paragraph 67 even less comprehensible or justifiable.

    These parents were not ‘newly arrived’, they’d been here for seven years and even if the paragraph was purporting to perhaps discuss parts of the world where immigration into the UK is a relatively new phenomenom, that’s palpably not the case with India. People from India have been coming to the UK to live for a very, very long time. Notably from 1948 (but actually a lot longer than that)

    I honestly cannot see the purpose of ‘newly arrived’ in that paragraph or how it relates to the facts of this case.

    [David, you might be interested in the President of the Family Division’s case in which he spent a long time thinking about whether there’s a difference between male circumcision and female circumcision – you may not ultimately agree with his conclusion, but it is clear that he gave it considerable thought paras 54-73 are the key ones]

  2. Spamlet says:

    This was posted on the FB feed first. Not many people seem to read that, it seems:

    I rather suspect that the author did not grow up in 1950s England, where the caning, slapping, slippering, belting, bits of broken deskliding, T-squaring, or whatever came to handing, of errant schoolkids, was so much a part of the culture that it was thought, even by the victims, as being amusing. There was even a TV series called ‘Whacko’, and a week seldom passed without a ‘Yaroo!’ from Billy Bunter.

    For the most part, I’m sure that no cruelty was intended, and the kids knew what the punishment for getting out of line was, and didn’t respect the teachers any less because of it. If it had been done unfairly, that would have been a different matter, but mostly, we did deserve it, and knew we did, and it had no lasting effect on us.

    And, in a society that didn’t think anything of it–or even thought it was amusing–we weren’t made to feel like victims or hold any grudges. Kids could tell the difference–like ‘A’ here, apparently, can–between deserved correctional punishment, and malice. The latter certainly did have bad effects, but on other occasions, a similar beating, without malice, would all be part of the game.

    It is malicious and excessive punishment that scars people, and in many ways, a tongue lashing could be much worse than an actual beating.

    The culture has changed now, so that shame and victimhood is attached to anyone so treated, and it might, in many cases, prove harmful: but it’s society that makes the child feel bad about punishments that would have been forgotten within minutes in earlier times.

    Obviously, I don’t know anything about this case, but, certainly, experience would support the fact that what is psychologically damaging in one culture can be trivial in another.

    We can’t turn the clock back to the days of Jimmy Edwards and Bunter in the UK, but let us not be too hasty in criminalising people who may be from cultures with different norms.

    [Incidentally, I watched some ‘Bunter’ on youtube the other day, and was quite surprised to find that the scary Mr Quelch, was actually a bit of an old softie. smile emoticon ]

    I know I won’t be changing any minds in writing this, as the arguments have all been thrashed to death themselves over several hundred years, but I think there is a real possibility that this boy ‘A’ will have been damaged by being made to feel a victim with an evil man for a father, whereas, without this fuss he might have forgotten all about it by now.

  3. david says:

    It is interesting that the safe counter-example of culturally-based abuse – FGM – is given here and in other media articles. And I have no doubt that it is indeed abuse of a most obscene kind. However, we seem to accept circumcision of males by races and cultures – I for one cannot see how this is not regarded as genital mutilation. Perhaps someone reading this could enlighten me – I might then be convinced that allowances are indeed not made for other cultural reasons

    1. John says:

      Child genital abuse – or any other kind of physical assault – is completely unacceptable, regardless of the beliefs of the genetic or other parents.
      The behaviour of the father in this case was uncivilised and barbaric, and takes us all back to a much harsher and more cruel era.
      I also think the judge should be re-trained or dismissed.
      Attempts to roll back the clock in search of so-called “conservative” values must be resisted.

    2. djmalz says:

      Circumcision for the male of the species has as its starting point hygiene. This is not the case with female circumcision which is about control of one human being by another.

    3. Verity says:

      Thank you! I abhor FGM, but I equally abhor the mutilation of babies and older children’s penises. Of course, if it is medically necessary, then it needs to be done. But in most cases it occurs due to religious or cultural beliefs or teachings. The foreskin serves several purposes, and I personally am of the belief that we should respect our bodies as they are true works of art!, miracles of nature! If its not broken, don’t try to fix it! Leave it to that child to make a decision as an informed adult as to whether they would like to keep or slice off a sensitive, functional part of their penis!. There has been a well publicised story recently of a mother who “abducted” her son and went on the run after losing a court battle where she was trying to prevent her son being circumcised against her wishes. I thought it tragic that a mother was not allowed to have the final say on a child she had carried and given birth to. I haven’t been able to follow their story lately, but I believe she has either returned or been found & that the procedure will be going ahead (if it hasn’t already!). Hundreds of thousands of Americans began fundraising to support and assist this woman in hiding and therefore preventing her son from being forcibly circumcised…which just goes to show that a growing number of people are standing up together to show their distaste at children of both sexes being unnecessarily mutilated in the most barbaric of rituals. I certainly would never entertain the idea of my children of either sex being subjected to such an ordeal. A daughter would never need circumcising as there is never a medical need to circumcise a female. Any son of mine would only ever be circumcised if there was a genuine medical reason which made it impossible to avoid – and I would explore every other possible cure or treatment before resorting to surgery.

  4. djmalz says:

    Actually finally, there is One Law For All regardless. Anything else brings English Law into disrepute. The statue of justice standing above the court entrance is blind.

  5. S.J. Schneider, Bordeaux says:

    A special margin of appreciation in applying the law to be now expressed by the term ‘culture sensitive’ impresses me as a notably subtle and notably dishonest way of talking about discrimination. And, incidentally, about cowardice in applying our laws.
    I have the duty and honour of serving on a municipal commission on discrimination in a French city. The incidence of wrong-doing (per the penal code) among certain sub-populations here, sub-populations not difficult to identify on cultural parameters, significantly exceeds the mean for the whole population. So when our public transport controllers enter a vehicle, an exercise in ‘cultural sensitivity’ should tell them whose tickets to check? And in competitions for public service jobs that demand self-control at all times, resistance to temptations, a ‘culturally sensitive’ number should now be weighted in among applicants’ qualifications?

  6. John says:

    I too found the judges comments incredible. The father of the 8-year old child had lived here for 9 years at the time of the assault. Whatever cultural context is being claimed, he cannot have been unaware that the standards of treatment of children in this country are not the same as the standards he might have been used to back in India. As such, he must also have been aware that cruel treatmnent of children in the UK is unlawful. The one person who appears to have lost sight of this very obvious fact is the judge. I would expect that some sort of judicial review of her decision will be held very shortly and the father re-tried and punished appropriately.
    Multiculturalism is not a licence for violent people to behave any way they like in our country.
    Ignorance of the law is no excuse – as everyone but the judge appears to appreciate.
    We – correctly – accept punishment of our nationals when they are abroad.
    The same principal applies in reverse.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation deficit DEFRA Democracy village Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justification just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: