“She … struck him in the face several times and picked up items belonging to him and started throwing them around. [Mr Hackett] stated he then grabbed her wrists and pushed her to the floor to stop her damaging his items. She has then started kicking and punching out at him. At this point he stated he struck her in the back to prevent her hitting him further… …[Suspect] stated that her boyfriend came home drunk and told her that he had slept with another woman. She stated that she went mad and slapped and he grabbed her around the throat and pushed her…”
“Caetano fully admitted slapping victim a number of times … [she] informed me that Hackett also strangled her when he was restraining her. Caetano told police officers on scene she had been “pushed in the throat” when Hackett pushed her away from him. Caetano couldn’t state why she failed to mention this to police on scene. Caetano stated that she had bruises to her neck as a result of this, however, she stated they had already disappeared after only 4 days and were not now visible.”
“The [detained person] fully admitted that she slapped the [detained person] several times in the face, therefore the offence of assault is complete. … The fact that the [detained person] states that she was also assaulted by the victim, does not constitute a defence, as she did not claim that her actions were in self-defence. The [detained person] has offered mitigating circumstances during her account. … It is understandable that when the [detained person] picked up his items, still in a fit of rage, the victim would believe that she would have damaged the property. The victim is entitled to use reasonable force in order to protect his property in the confines of the law. Both parties have stated that Mr Hackett restrained the [detained person] as opposed to going onto the attack in order to stop her destroying or even taking his property. I note that the victim has provided a statement to police and has included the fact that he does not wish for this matter to support a prosecution for assault of for criminal damage [to his t-shirt]. As this is a physical altercation between two parties that had been in a relationship, this would classify quite correctly a domestic violence case. Rather unfortunately, it is very common that the victim does not wish to prosecute their partner for offences against them for a variety of reasons, however, in line with the seriousness that the Met Police place on all domestic abuse, victimless prosecutions are pushed for, if it is felt there is sufficient evidence for the Crown to present. It is also common that the victim has stated they would not wish to proceed, the Judge would issue a summons requiring the victim to attend court and give evidence. With the account from the victim, the damage, the damage observed by the police and the admission of the offence on 2 occasions by the [detained person] there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction. After reviewing this evidence and applying it against the Full Test Code I am satisfied that Stage 1 (the evidential stage) has been met. ”
“ … I am also satisfied that Stage 2 (public interest factors) has been fulfilled as a widespread of a common public interest factors tending to favour prosecution have been identified. Having reviewed all the circumstances surrounding this offence including looking at the offenders lack of criminal history and making reference to the ACPO Gravity Factors Matrix, I have determined that this case appropriately be dealt with by an out of court disposal, namely a CAUTION. Whilst the [detained person] has committed two offences, namely Criminal Damage and Assault by beating, it would not be in the public interest for [her] to be dealt with for both despite her full admissions. The Gravity Factor is relatively low (2) and given the circumstances, a Caution for the main offence would be a fair method of disposal. In view of the above I am satisfied that the Full Code Test has been met.”
“…the facts of this case after taking into consideration the circumstances make a prosecution a necessary and proportionate response to this matter. Article 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 especially considered.”
“[The Directorate of Legal Services] state that [Dr. Caetano] made admissions to the offence both to the officer who attended the scene and in a PACE compliant interview with legal representation present. Furthermore, regarding the CPS Full Code evidential test, Mr Hackett told police (sic) soon after the event that [Dr. Caetano] had struck him in the face several times, although he did not want her to go to court. Therefore, prosecution would not have been in the public interest and taking all the circumstances into account a caution was the most appropriate outcome. Later protestations that the caution was not understood should have less weight than the facts and representations made at the time of the offence and whilst being dealt with for that matter. I have considered the representations made on behalf of [the claimant] but do not find them persuasive. The main argument put is that the caution is not administered in accordance with the public interest stage of the CPS Full Code Test for prosecutions and the ACPO Gravity Factors Matrix. I do not concur with this view. This is a domestic violence matter, public and policing policy in this area is quite clear. A case disposal by way of Adult Caution is fully justified. The views of Mr Hackett have been noted. It is not unusual for victims of domestic violence to change their positions. Domestic violence policy recognises this pattern but takes the broader societal view that perpetrators should be given clear messages that violence is unacceptable. My view in the circumstances is that the caution be retained.”
“A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour, or unless a prosecutor is satisfied that the public interest may be properly served, in the first instance by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out of court disposal …”
“A prosecution is less likely to be required if: a) The court is likely to impose a nominal penalty; b) The seriousness and the consequences of the offending can be appropriately dealt by an out-of-court disposal which the suspect accepts and with which he or she complies … e) The loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by a misjudgement: … f) A prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victims physical or mental health … i) The suspect has put right the loss or harm that was caused … j) The suspect or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health …”
“…Prosecutors may direct that a Simple Caution may be offered in accordance with CPS and Home Office guidance … 7.7 Prosecutors must be satisfied that the Full Code Test is met… 7.8 The acceptance of a Simple Caution or other out of court disposal which is complied with takes the place of a prosecution. If the offer of a Simple Caution is refused, a prosecution must follow for the original offence. If any other out of court disposal is not accepted, prosecutors will apply the Full Code Test…”
“Conviction is likely to result in unusually small or nominal penalty … Vulnerability of the offender. Provocation from victim…and offender reacted impulsively… Offender is or was at the time of the offence suffering from significant mental … ill health and offence is not likely to be repeated…”
“2.1 there is no specific statutory offence of domestic violence. “Domestic violence” is a general term that describes a range of controlling and coercive behaviours, which are used by one person to maintain control over another with whom they have, or have had, an intimate family relationship. It is the cumulative and interlinked physical, psychological, sexual, emotional or financial abuse that has a particularly damaging effect on the victim…We recognise that both men and women can be victims. Although the majority of victims are women, and taking actions against domestic violence is included as part of the CPS Violence Against Women Strategy, we will apply our domestic violence policy without discrimination in all cases. 2.2 The Government definition of domestic violence against men and women (agreed in 2004) is: “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse … between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.””
“…police officers responsible for applying the Home Office Circular…must enjoy a wide margin of appreciation as to the nature of the case and whether the pre-conditions for a caution are satisfied; and that it will be a rare case where a person who has been cautioned will succeed in showing that the decision was fatally flawed…”