Later edit: This post elaborates on the mental health impact of an alleged victim being coerced to give evidence for the prosecution in a domestic case, against their significant other. Please excuse the number of expletives; it was written in a state of justifiable tension. It centres on the paradox of the PF pursuing offences such as threats and degrading treatment by members of the public, while freely engaging in the same tactics against witnesses, causing intense emotional distress to those they label as "victims".
Second edit: Whereas defending someone who might not deserve it is likely the wrong choice, alleged victims suffer distress as a result of being threatened by the court, whether they oppose the case out of cognitive dissonance or not. Moreover, there are indeed many cases involving innocent people (arrested after malicious third party calls) or minor incidents between people who are otherwise not abusive. The experience is therefore still valid.
For more information about being a reluctant witness in a domestic case in Scotland, please visit https://reluctantwitness.co.uk/ .
Being a member of the human species, contrary to what Fiscals seem to think, is on a continuum. Witnesses are not intermittently human, as in only having feelings when subjected to certain behaviours by the accused - in other words, when it serves the Fiscal.
Making emotional abuse punishable by law entails acknowledging the serious impact threats, coercion and humiliation can have on a person. In other words, pretending to care about the psychological state of said individual. Yet when an alleged victim, particularly after a minor domestic incident, doesn't want the case to go forward, the PF commonly resorts to threats and sometimes false accusations to ensure their obedience.
In any case involving a domestic incident, an attempt will be made to demonise the accused, portraying them as a self-centred, coercive, abusive individual. It doesn't matter if the incident was extremely short and only caused momentary panic. As the alleged victim, you will be asked questions regarding this person's treatment of you, and anything you told the police will be exaggerated. Make no mistake - it's not because they believe it, or because they care. It's mere currency to them.
What matters to them is the narrative - by having a conscience and at least giving nuances to the situation, you are weakening it, which makes you an inconvenience to them. There is no doubt in my mind they would rather you lied convincingly. They are not concerned with the truth, but merely with getting a conviction.
Here's the elephant in the room: while they call you a victim and question you regarding supposed abuse you have endured, if you are a reluctant witness, the PF is mentally abusing you in real time, and no one even gives half a turd about this contradiction. You are only seen as a sentient individual in relation to the accused - and only in the context of the evidence they can use to get a conviction (what you think and feel about them otherwise doesn't matter).
The Procurator Fiscal may threaten to falsely accuse you of offences with no evidence
Writing to the PF as an alleged victim, in good faith, explaining why the case is against your wishes and best interest, will only put a target on your head. There will be no bona fides. Please don't do this without a solicitor's help.
According to this disclosure, it is indeed common for the PF to send a threatening letter to the alleged victim. It confirms my personal experience was not an isolated one.
They will dissect your communication to them, with a microscopical eye for any pretext they might employ to accuse you of wrongdoing. This puts you on the defensive, painting an equally bleak future for your family, or potentially bleaker (at their own hand) than if you were to give evidence.
Moreover, when it's signaled to the PF that either the police misquoted the witness or they misread the police report, resulting in one or more false charges added to those based on actual events, instead of verifying, they leave those false charges in place and threaten the alleged victim for not supporting the narrative, which is an absurd situation.
The accused is therefore tarred with false accusations, possibly impacting on their bail conditions for months to come, and the alleged victim faces threats for not supporting lies. The PF argues all information came from the police, while the police, when asked, argue the charges in question were put in place by the PF. No possibility of an actual resolution is given to those affected.
Most people are not legal professionals and don't know what the outcome is likely to be. That is terrifying, especially once you lose faith in the system after reaching out to the PF and receiving threats and false accusations as a reply. You instantly realise that the truth doesn't matter and anything can happen going forward. You may wonder whether - or when - you'll be arrested and prosecuted based on those threats and what will happen to your family.
Doomsday scenarios keeping you up at night may follow. You may wonder if:
- Your partner/spouse will be convicted, false charges included, and suffer greatly as a result, along with the rest of you family;
- You will be arrested and prosecuted based on false charges as well, as threatened by the PF;
- If you are a foreign national, you may worry about deportation, if you get into legal trouble.
If children are involved and your financial situation is presently difficult, you may end up wondering how you will support them alone and eventually, which parent they can afford to be estranged from for a period of time, and whether you should make a sacrificial false confession of having lied to begin with and bear the brunt of it, to avoid your family ending up on the street (don't do this; speak to a solicitor instead; they can apply for legal aid on your behalf, to help you through this situation).
The only certainty remains that this is what you get for calling the police one time, in a moment of panic - invariably having your life damaged. No reasonable person, at this point, could blame you for regretting having called, even if you were justified to panic at the time. As mentioned in previous posts, if you are feeling suicidal, you can call or write to Samaritans.
Coercion
If reconciliation is sought by both parties, the case going forward is objectively against the alleged victim's best interest, and against the best interest of others affected by it. In other words, it benefits no one and causes harm to all involved. Any possible outcome if the case goes forward is detrimental compared to being allowed to overcome the incident and move on with life. Even in the event of the outcome not being drastic, this involves months of forced separation and distress.
Having established that the only thing the case can possibly cause is harm, the alleged victim is therefore coerced to participate, as in forced to act against his/her best interest.
This is the definition of coercion on Wikipedia (excuse the source; it's clear enough though):
In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat.
The threat of arrest for contempt of court is used, if one refuses to give evidence, (again, worsened if you're an immigrant post-Brexit and any conviction could result in your deportation, which can and does ruin lives). Hence in some cases it may well be a threat of being permanently separated from your family.
The threat of making up false accusations against you, as mentioned above, is added to the equation. If you haven't committed any offences, they wouldn't obtain a conviction, but at that stage you wouldn't have any confidence in that regard.
You therefore end up in a Catch 22: you either help them damage your life and that of others you hold dear, or they may damage it to an equal or higher extent if you refuse. It's similar to asking you whether you want to be hanged or shot, with complete detachment. Either way it's an awful situation for you and your family, so it's a matter of weighing the extent of the damage in each scenario. Since everything is at stake for you, they do take coercion to the proverbial next level, with all the psychological damage it entails.
To expand on the ways the Fiscal torments and intimidates a reluctant witness, let's have a look at the list of what the law now defines as "coercive, controlling behaviour", quoted from The Independent.
This is not to compare a family bond with the way you relate to a heartless bureaucrat - the effect is however identical, when someone is treated this way based on a power imbalance. The comparison below is meant to show the double standards and the utter lack of consideration for the impact their tactics can have on someone's mental health.
What is “controlling, coercive” behaviour?
The Home Office’s Statutory Guidance Framework on “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” includes:
Isolating a person from their friends and family
Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
Financial abuse
Threats to reveal or publish private information
Isolating a person from their friends and family
The special bail condition forbidding contact between partners/spouses can be in place for many months. Should this be against the wishes of both individuals and demonstrably detrimental to all involved (including their children, if they have any), only causing distress, the Fiscal doesn't care.
Attempts to remove this bail condition can be made by the accused person's solicitor, with the cooperation of the alleged victim (this happens very often). But what does the fiscal do in response? Oppose this application, invariably, as it is contrary to the narrative they want to present during the trial. That's how much they care about people's lives and well-being.
The complexity of the situation and needless distress inflicted on everyone, including the alleged victim, does not matter to them. Nor does it matter if the alleged victim is utterly isolated and in a state of despondency over this issue. For instance, if they have no family members in the area (or country) to turn to, they may find this state of isolation particularly difficult.
2. Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
The fiscal may not not be controlling all of the above in real time - minus who they can see, as they cannot see the accused, at times the closest person to them - but they do have a substantial impact on the alleged victim's life, in many ways.
As humans do, people forcibly separated by a case of this type have an established system they function by, as in roles within a family. These are heavily disrupted by the case, which complicates previously simple matters pertaining to everyday life, especially if they are bringing up children together, and have to establish a new system, out of the blue, with no preparation whatsoever.
To disrupt people's lives in such a manner, long term and against their will, is to enforce one's will on many aspects of their daily existence, regardless of how difficult they find it and how much they resent it. It is, at a minimum, making someone's life harder unnecessarily, based on nothing but a power imbalance.
I must stress here that at this stage, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty - they are however punished in advance, along with the rest of their family, for months on end, through this forced separation. No attempt is made to verify that this prolonged and drastic separation is necessary or beneficial in any way, to anyone.
3. Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
This shouldn't need extrapolation - the experience of a reluctant witness is truly dehumanising.
By dismissing you in every single way, here's what the fiscal is actually saying, without having to use any words:
Your thoughts and intentions regarding your own life don't matter.
Your best interest doesn't matter.
You are mentally incapable of assessing your situation/relationship, aka "you're stupid".
The distress you are in doesn't matter.
Reality itself, as in the bigger picture regarding your family, which may be proven in many ways, doesn't matter either.
You are powerless.
You are easily ignored.
Your only worth is to serve the fiscal's purpose, whatever happens to you in the meantime or afterwards.
4. Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
This also shouldn't need extrapolation. Giving evidence is harrowing enough when done for the right reasons - let alone when you are vehemently opposed to it and all it will cause is needless damage to all involved.
The proceedings therefore become a degrading experience, with the added degradation of knowing why they are taking place (prosecution quotas) and that one is powerless to stop them. Fiscals indeed take degradation to the proverbial next level, as they do coercion.
Being coerced to help them damage your life, while they farcically call you a "victim", is utterly debasing. It is akin to being a circus seal on its way to being put down after its last performance. It is one of the most undignified positions a person can find themselves in.
Being interrogated on private matters by a hostile individual who ignores your resistance (also known as dignity), is dehumanising. It is in fact a form of public humiliation which can scar someone mentally for life. And yes, it is absolutely abusive, by their own standards.
5. Threats to reveal or publish private information
In the context of this comparison, this one really takes the cake, akin to the point about dehumanisation, which they routinely inflict on people.
The act of being coerced into giving evidence, in a sensitive situation, entails private information being dragged out of you against you will and to your detriment. This happens while everyone in the courtroom is fully aware of it - that you are being humiliated and mentally scarred in real time, over a minor event.
In some cases, what the fiscal can hope to get is a measly fine. To drag people through this for months, and through a trial, is outright cruel.
In conclusion - if you hadn't experienced abuse and trauma, they'll make sure that you do.
If you're looking for logic or something remotely connected to the experience of being human, when it comes to the Crown Office, stop looking. It's not there.