Sentencing Guidelines for HBV and Honour Killings

Honour-Based Violence (HBV) and Honour Killings are crimes committed to salvage the reputation of families and are usually committed because of the deviant (and usually sexual) behaviour of a woman is perceived to have brought about shame. Violence, it is believed, must then be inflicted in order to modify that behaviour and to cleanse the family’s reputation of dishonour. This article will explore the role of the criminal courts in tackling HBV by appropriately punishing those who perpetrate such acts. It will argue that despite the increasing number of prosecutions in these types of cases, Sentencing Council guidelines are needed not only to help achieve consistency, but to help to ensure that sentencing judges apply relevant aggravating and mitigating factors that will lead to the imposition of a proportionate sentence that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. This article will offer proposals and will examine the main aggravating and mitigating factors a newly devised Sentencing Council guideline should include

Criminalisation of the Burqa in the UK

In 2010, the French government passed a law banning face coverings in public places. This includes shopping malls, restaurants and schools. Although worded widely, the law was drafted to prevent Muslim women from wearing the Islamic face veil in public. Those who wear it now risk facing a criminal conviction. In February 2014, the House of Commons held a Second Reading of the Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill, which is very similar to the French law. Though it did not complete its passage through Parliament, the Bill signals an intention by some to ban face veils in British streets. This paper will examine the main arguments for and against the policy to criminalise the burqa and how a ban undermines the autonomy and identity of Muslim women. It will argue that a paternalistic law that instructs women what they can (or cannot) wear would be very alien to British culture. Analysis will also be provided on the Grand Chamber’s decision in SAS v France (2015) and the potential impact this might have for the UK and human rights law

Not domestic violence or cultural tradition: is honour-based violence distinct from domestic violence?

This paper addresses an important conceptual question surrounding the categorisation of honour-based violence (hereafter ‘HBV’) – Is HBV a subspecies of domestic violence (hereafter ‘DV’)? According to academic commentators such as Reddy, Aujla and Gill, HBV falls within the broad spectrum of DV. Utilising data extracted from interviews conducted with 30 key agents, this paper will seek to provide incontrovertible evidence that HBV is different to DV because the characteristics it presents offer some differences. Furthermore, the overall strategies used to investigate HBV by UK law enforcement agencies differ to that of DV. Being this specific about HBV does not necessarily mean that one succumbs to cultural-essentialist assumptions about the prevalence of such violence in particular communities either. Rather, an understanding that HBV can be different will help identify the serious dangers it presents and the strategies needed to support victims

Transphobic ‘honour’-based abuse : a conceptual tool

This paper proposes that an understanding of transphobic ‘honour’-based abuse can be employed as a conceptual tool to explore trans people’s experiences of familial abuse. This conception has evolved by connecting a sociology of shame, Goffman's work on stigma and 'honour'-based ideology. The discussion draws upon findings of a qualitative study which explored trans people's experiences of domestic violence and abuse. Narrative interviews were undertaken with fifteen trans people who had either experienced abuse or whose perceptions were informed experientially through their support of others. Transcripts were analysed using the Listening Guide. Findings indicate that trans people can experience abuse as a result of a family's perceptions of shame and stigma. This paper offers a novel way of conceptualising trans people's experiences of family-based abuse, but it also holds potential for understanding other relational contexts, for example, those of intimate partnerships

Forced marriages - the need for criminalisation?

Sections 120 and 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’) make it a criminal offence to breach a Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO) and to force a person into marriage. This paper will examine the arguments for and against the policy to criminalise forced marriages. While forced marriages are wrong and violate human rights, the 2014 Act may do little to prevent them because victims may be reluctant to see family members prosecuted. While, symbolically, criminalisation is welcomed because it makes a strong declaration that forced marriages are unacceptable, what is notably absent are strategies on prevention