Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a national emergency. Rightly, Labour has vowed to halve VAWG in a decade – an ambitious goal but one which is, at present, frustratingly vague. The commitment reflects an important acknowledgement of the scale of the problem we face, but the absence of detailed plans raises concerns about how such a goal can realistically be achieved. I represent survivors of male violence against women and girls day in, day out in the Family Court. I know the value of the law as a tool to better the lives of those most at risk, but I also know the dangers of unfulfilled promises or vague legal changes. Clear, measurable steps are what is needed to deliver meaningful reform.

The most detailed information I’ve seen comes from Jess Phillips MP in media reports. She outlines several initiatives to address domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. These include introducing protection orders for survivors of domestic violence, embedding domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms and reviewing police handling of stalking cases. Such measures are a step in the right direction, but will they alone achieve the transformational change so desperately needed? Without clearly defined targets or timelines, I’m concerned these plans face serious issues. Promises without tangible outcomes risk perpetuating the status quo – which, as we know, isn’t working. Labour’s updated VAWG strategy, due later this year, must provide more than good intentions.

We’ve spent decades trying to reform the system into something that protects women and children, but consistently, systems continue to fail them. What are we doing differently that’s going to make tangible change this time? Have we listened to what women and children are telling us they need? As a family law barrister, I’ve seen progress, but I’ve seen far more women harmed at the hands of a system neither built by the people it’s meant to serve nor willing to work with them. At a minimum, Labour’s policies need measurable benchmarks that hold institutions accountable for progress, and they need to ensure that the people that the policies affect have a significant hand in the process.

A personal and professional aspect of this issue for me is the chronic failure of the justice system to deliver justice for survivors of violence. Rape prosecutions in England and Wales are at their lowest levels on record, with the number of rape victims withdrawing from cases more than doubling in the past five years, according to analysis by the Guardian.* The Crown Court system is paralysed by delays, with a backlog that could reach 100,000 cases. Mothers who are survivors of domestic abuse face allegations of pseudoscientific concepts such as ‘parental alienation’ which often, in the end, supersede their allegations of abuse. Children are too often placed in the care of abusive parents. Take, for instance, the heartbreaking case of Sara Sharif, where nearly every authority failed her. Sara, who was murdered by her abusive father and stepmother, was failed most strikingly in the Family Court. The judges who oversaw the court proceedings were recently named.

This year, I represented a mother in the Family Court who is a survivor of rape. Her young daughter was placed under unsupervised contact with the father, Kristoffer White, who, in addition to being found to have raped the mother three times by the Family Court, had also previously been criminally convicted of raping a teenager. Cafcass supported him initially, recommending he have unsupervised access. Later, a new Cafcass children’s guardian told the court that White was a ‘danger to women and children’ and ‘unsafe’. Ultimately, we were successful, and White was stripped of parental responsibility. I shudder to think about how many survivors and children slip past us silently as we continue to stall and vaguely promise reform to end male violence against women and children.

We are still awaiting legal reform nearly five years after the Ministry of Justice published the Harm Report, which revealed the failures of the Family Court to protect and serve survivors and children. Right to Equality, a non-profit organisation I founded, campaigns to end the harmful presumption of contact, increase transparency in the Family Court, require mandatory bias training for legal professions (particularly judges), and update the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to use an affirmative consent model. Indeed, we have published several reports on these issues, most recently on ending the presumption of contact, as well as commissioned research from Oxford University and Berkeley Law on affirmative consent. We will publish our report on gender bias and victim-blaming in the Family Court in December this year. Uplifting the voices of survivors is necessary for making change, and our government must listen.

Survivors’ lack of faith in the system – as both a protective and punitive mechanism – makes radical reform an urgent necessity. Even the most well-meaning strategies will falter without significant investment in court resources, survivor support and institutional accountability. Against this backdrop of institutional dysfunction, I faced professional misconduct charges brought by the Bar Standards Board for publicly criticising a domestic abuse judgment. The tribunal found there was no case to answer. I was vindicated. My recent victory offers a powerful example of why critique and accountability matter. Calling out gendered biases is vital to making change in all spaces, even within the legal profession. My exoneration reaffirmed the importance of free speech and the right to challenge entrenched injustices. My case highlights the resistance women face when speaking out, a reflection of the same systemic inequalities that allow VAWG to persist unchallenged.

We must protect and amplify the voices of women, whether in the legal profession or elsewhere, as a critical part of any effective strategy to combat VAWG. Let me be clear: Labour’s pledge to halve VAWG is a welcome step, especially in light of the history of women’s struggle for basic rights – a struggle we should never have had to fight in the first place – but it risks becoming an empty promise without systemic reform. My case illustrates the power of holding institutions to account and challenging entrenched cultures of misogyny. The fight against VAWG demands better laws, yes – but it also requires a seismic shift in institutional attitudes, from police to courtrooms and beyond.

As I’ve noted, a truly effective strategy must be survivor-centred, focusing on both prevention and genuine justice. This includes educating young people about consent and healthy relationships, improving resources for survivors, and ensuring that perpetrators face swift and meaningful consequences. Success should be measured by the extent to which survivors feel heard, supported, and protected. My forthcoming book, He Said, She Said, exposes how the family court system perpetuates injustice against survivors of domestic abuse, echoing the systemic failures outlined in this article. Promises of reform mean little without measurable action – or we will continue failing women and children.

Under our current government, the fight against VAWG is a test of political will but still extends to the broader, continuous test of institutional integrity and societal commitment. Labour’s promises mark an important rhetorical shift, but we know rhetoric alone is insufficient. The lessons of my case and many others – and the barriers encountered – can inform a broader movement for systemic change. If Labour is to deliver on its pledge, its strategy must go beyond words on a page. It must offer a genuine roadmap to justice, accountability and, ultimately, a society where VAWG is no longer tolerated. 

References

‘Rape trials collapse as victims abandon cases amid long court delays’, Emily Dugan and Michael Goodier, the Guardian, 6 December 2024.

Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases (the ‘Harm Report’), Ministry of Justice, July 2019.

Ending the Presumption of Contact in Family Courts, Dr Adrienne Barnett and Dr Charlotte Proudman, Right to Equality, May 2024.

Research on affirmative consent commissioned by Right to Equality from Oxford University (‘Affirmative Consent’ in the Law of Sexual Offences in Commonwealth Jurisdictions, January 2024) and Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law (Policy Paper on Affirmative Consent, March 2024) can be viewed here.