{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02336448598130841, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004672897196261682, 'mean_word_length': 5.541984732824427, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Duplicity of Protection—Prosecuting Frightened Victims: An Act of Gender-Based Violence

This article considers the recent developments in the prosecution of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence, and focuses on domestic and European Court of Human Rights' jurisdiction. Particular consideration is given to hearsay and bad character provisions (Criminal Justice Act 2003) in bolstering the prosecution of perpetrators. The article examines the application by judges of the ‘interests of justice’ and ‘fairness' tests in the admission of such evidence. The recent prosecution of victims of domestic violence for contempt of court and perverting the course of justice because of their failure to give evidence is a serious breach of the state's obligation to protect, is vindictive and oppressive and, as such, perpetuates gender-based violence.