Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is concerned with criminal justice and concentrates upon legal protection and assistance to victims of crime, particularly domestic violence. It also expands the provision for trials without a jury, brings in new rules for trials for causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, and permits bailiffs to use force to enter homes. The circumstances in which such orders could be imposed was extended to include same sex couples and cohabiting couples on an equal footing with married couples. Former cohabitants are also included.

Restraining orders (preventing the recipient from doing anything specified in the order) can be imposed upon acquitted defendants. They are imposed if the court "considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant". The Court of Appeal in allowing an appeal against conviction may also remit the matter to the Crown Court to consider a restraining order in respect of the otherwise successful appellant.

The Act deemed common assault an arrestable offence. The practical effect of this change was that the police could arrest a suspect at the scene without a warrant, rather than potentially be compelled to leave the suspected assailant with his or her alleged victim. Previously the police would have to allege assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which was arrestable, in order to detain the suspected assailant in borderline cases. However, the concept of "arrestable offence" was abolished on 1 January 2006. as of 2007, police can effect an arrest, even in the case of suspected common assault, in order "to prevent the person in question causing physical injury to himself or any other person." The Act specified common assault as an alternative verdict to a count on an aggravated assault in the Crown Court, though it is not itself an indictable offence.

Judges, not a specially empanelled jury, now decide if a defendant is fit to plead.". The regime for dealing with defendants who are unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity (that is, committed the physical acts constituting the offence but without the sane intent) has also been modified. The court, not the Home Secretary, makes the assessment (requiring medical evidence to do so) whether the defendant should be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

Court procedure is amended to restrict the circumstances in which the trial can be stopped at the end of the prosecution case and before the defence case. The ambit of the "adverse inference" (right of the jury to make assumptions about any part of the case, including the guilt of the defendant, based upon his or her failure to answer any question put in court) is extended to include an inference on a joint charge of homicide (murder and manslaughter) and the new offence; this means that if a person is charged with either (or both) homicide offences and this new offence, then silence in the witness box can imply guilt of homicide as well as the new offence. This is subject to the usual safeguard that a person cannot be convicted solely upon the basis of their silence. The point at which a "no case to answer" submission (see definition) can be made has in certain circumstances been moved to the end of the whole case, not just the prosecution. Joint charges of homicide and the new offence can only be dismissed at the end of the whole case (if the new offence has survived past that stage as well). The new offence will survive the "no case to answer" test as long as the fundamentals of the offence are demonstrated the prosecution do not have to show whether the defendant caused or allowed the death to happen. The defendant will be under pressure to give evidence about what occurred not to do so would result in the adverse inference being drawn.

A number of issues have been pointed out by legal scholars with the current drafting. David Ormerod, writing in the criminal law textbook Smith and Hogan, notes that the Act deliberately does not define what counts as a "household". Additionally, the Act does not adequately cover some classes of carers who do not live in a household residence but have regular contact—domestic nannies, for instance. The law also leaves unclear whether one carer is legally responsible for not taking steps to protect a vulnerable victim from the risky behaviour of another of his or her carers.

The Act permits bailiffs to use force to enter homes, overturning a centuries old doctrine, confirmed by Semayne's case (1604), that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This had been described in the eighteenth century by William Blackstone, who wrote in Book 4, Chapter 16 of his Commentaries on the Laws of England:
text=And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully; quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium? For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principal it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case. In 2009 charities providing advice to debtors said they were seeing bailiffs threatening to break in unless the debtor paid the full fine immediately, as well court and bailiff costs. Previously, charities had been able to advise debtors that bailiffs did not have the right to force entry, and the fine could be referred back to the courts and affordable payment schedules worked out.