Will Stacey Hyde’s acquittal finally change hearts and minds?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/15/stacey-hyde-acquittal-emma-humphreys

Version 0 of 1.

When Stacey Hyde walked free from Winchester Crown Court last month, there were tears of joy, along with much hugging and celebratory shrieking from Hyde and her many supporters.

In 2009 Hyde stabbed Vincent Francis to death as he was attacking her. The man Hyde killed was the partner of Hyde’s best friend, Holly Banwell, who had also suffered violence on several occasions from Francis. Hyde was 17 when she killed Francis and had suffered a lifetime of physical and sexual abuse and severe neglect. After a successful campaign by Justice for Women (JfW), the feminist law reform campaign I co-founded in 1990, Hyde won her appeal against a murder conviction and a retrial was ordered. Having already served five years in prison, this seemed a cruel blow. However, Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, insisted the trial go ahead. Neither she, nor the prosecutor in Hyde’s original case (who would also be prosecuting in the retrial) would accept a plea of manslaughter.

When Humphreys died, I took comfort in the fact changes in the law her case brought about would help women in the future

When Hyde was released, she had been acquitted not only of murder, but also of manslaughter, the jury accepting that she had committed no crime whatsoever, and was simply defending herself against Vincent’s violent rage. Will this case signal a change in attitudes towards women who defend themselves against male violence?

Twenty years ago next month, Emma Humphreys walked out of the court of appeal having not only successfully challenged her murder conviction, but also changed the law regarding abused women who kill. In the Humphreys case, the appeal judge ruled that the judge at her original trial should have directed the jury to consider the cumulative provocation she suffered at the hands of the deceased, as well as her life history of sexual and domestic violence. The judgment showed how far the courts had moved over the years in its interpretation of “provocation”.

Watching Hyde give her first TV interview this week, I was painfully reminded of Humphreys, who was also 17 when she was convicted of killing a violent man, who was her boyfriend and pimp. Humphreys had a similar history of abuse and neglect to Hyde, and also had mental health issues and regularly self-harmed. Like Hyde, Humphreys had a problem with alcohol, and had been raped by men who targeted her when she was in a vulnerable situation.

When Humphreys died, three years after being released, JfW took comfort in the fact that her legacy would be that the changes in the law her case brought about would help women in similar situations in the future. But unfortunately, as all campaigners to end violence against women and girls know, we often take one step forward before being pushed back by the male-dominated institutions that serve to keep us in our place.

Several cases of abused women charged with murder that JfW campaigned for after Humphreys’ victory failed at trial or at appeal, with the women being classed as murderers despite evidence of abuse at the hands of the deceased.

Jane Andrews, a working-class woman from Grimsby who worked as the Duchess of York’s dresser for nine years until 1997, was convicted of murdering her boyfriend Tom Cressman in 2000. Andrews alleged serious sexual abuse by Cressman, but she was not believed at either her trial or her appeal, despite JfW putting forward evidence that substantiated her claims. Rather, the courts chose to believe that she killed Cressman in a jealous rage because he refused to marry her.

There are many other cases of women who kill in which evidence of sustained domestic abuse is submitted to the court, but where they are nonetheless convicted of murder. This week Hyde called for such cases to be re-examined.

Perhaps the acquittal of Stacey Hyde is the beginning of a change of hearts and minds in the way we view young, vulnerable women who defend themselves against male violence. The legal victory in the Humphreys case meant an important change in the law, and legal scholars and students have cited it to describe how the antiquated legal system was forced to take notice of how a lifetime of abuse and sexual violence can lead to terrible tragedy. But the cruel and unnecessary treatment of Hyde, being made to endure two horrendous trials for doing nothing more than defending her own life, shows how far we still have to go before Humphreys’ legacy is truly secure.