Supreme Court ruling on domestic violence raises difficult questions for councils
The Supreme Court has widened the term 'domestic violence' in homelessness cases to include psychological abuse.
The Supreme Court has widened the term 'domestic violence' in homelessness cases to include psychological abuse.
Under section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996, victims of domestic violence are automatically treated as homeless and must be rehoused as a priority.
The case involved Mirhet Yemshaw, who left her council house and took her children with her. Hounslow Council refused to treat her as homeless because she had not suffered physical violence or threats of violence. She told housing officers she was worried her husband was having an affair and was scared he would hit her if she confronted him. She also complained that he had denied her money for housekeeping.
Following the ruling, a spokesman for Hounslow Council said the decision by the Supreme Court widened the criteria significantly, and 'raises questions for local authorities across the country when determining housing need'.
He went on: 'This was a case where there was no allegation of physical violence or a threat of such violence and, from the information presented to us, Mrs Yemshaw did not meet our criteria for priority support. This view was supported by the county court and the Court of Appeal.'
The spokesman said that the council would reassess the case and change its policies as a result of the ruling from the Supreme Court.
Paul Sowerbutts, senior partner of London firm Scully and Sowerbutts, acted for Mirhet Yemshaw.
Sowerbutts said that although each case would be considered on its merits, a 'hidden group' of victims might now be able to come forward.
'Lots of women will be able to get away from abusive relationships which may well have ended in physical violence anyway,' he said.
'Mrs Yemshaw's husband said he would not hit her because he did not want to be arrested. This ruling supports women in situations where in the past they did not have that support.'
Sowerbutts said it was 'absolutely vital' that legal aid was not withdrawn from homelessness reviews.
Without public funding at the review stage and a properly prepared case, he doubted whether Mrs Yemshaw would have been successful.
He added that after spending around a year at a refuge, she had found alternative accommodation in the private sector.
Giving the leading judgment in Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3, Lady Hale said 'violence' for the purposes of section 177(1) should include locking someone in the house, depriving them of food or the money to buy food.
Lady Hale said that by the time of the 1996 Act understanding of domestic violence had 'moved on from a narrow focus upon battered wives and physical contact'.
She said there was a 'consciousness of the need to align housing, homelessness and family law remedies for victims of domestic violence'.
Lady Hale said 'violence' was a similar word to 'family'. She went on: 'It is not a term of art. It is capable of bearing several meanings and applying to many different types of behaviour. These can change and develop over time.'
Lady Hale said the purpose of the legislation would be achieved if 'domestic violence' was interpreted in the same way as the president of the Family Division in his 2009 practice direction on residence and contact orders.
'This includes threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk of harm.'
She allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the council. Lords Hope, Walker and Rodger agreed. Lord Brown confessed to 'doubts and hesitation', but did not feel 'sufficiently strongly' to dissent.