“Some violence in the home is acceptable” – the claim nobody made

England’s Domestic Abuse Commissioner claims that the legal defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ implies that “some violence in the home is acceptable”. This statement, made in a new government-published report, will raise eyebrows—particularly as it’s the only reference to smacking in the report’s 182 pages.

The Commissioner’s comment appears in a section addressing the “Impacts of domestic abuse on children”. Yet the report does not actually recommend scrapping the defence of reasonable chastisement. Nor has the Government endorsed the Commissioner’s view. Rather the Education Minister confirmed there are no current plans to change the law.

Instead, the inclusion of the claim suggests an attempt to subtly shift public opinion on the issue. It is surely an attempt to build momentum behind the scenes.

The claim is based on a faulty understanding of the “reasonable chastisement” defence. Contrary to the assertion that it condones violence, the defence actually exists to distinguish between abuse and legitimate, non-violent parental discipline. Its role is not to excuse harm, but to ensure actions the courts consider to be reasonable – typically, a light smack – are not mischaracterised as criminal assault.

Despite the Commissioner’s comment, no one has claimed that “some violence in the home is acceptable”. The entire purpose of the defence is to ensure violence in the home is treated as violence, while ensuring ordinary parenting is not. It aims to protect children from violence, while defending families from intrusive and unnecessary investigation.

The Commissioner said the defence “blurs the boundaries”. The truth is that it draws them. It enables the police to intervene where a child is at risk of harm. And it ensures they do not intervene when a parent has acted reasonably.

This ensures the legal system can act effectively in tackling cruelty against children, targeting resources where it is needed, and preventing genuine abuse. Parents who are violent are criminalised under the law; those who act in their child’s best interest are not.

In contrast, removing the defence of reasonable chastisement creates a new and troubling grey area. What happens to the many parents who choose to lightly smack, who are clearly not abusing their children?

Those pressing for legal change often insist that such parents should not be treated as criminals. Yet by removing the defence the law would find them guilty of assault.

Would social services and the police then be expected to intervene in cases where the courts would say parents are acting reasonably? That is the logical consequence of legal change. If so, we will be criminalising ordinary parents and flooding the system with cases that distract from genuine child protection.

This would not create clarity – it would blur the lines instead. Healthy, stable families made subject to intensive investigation is not an improvement in the law.