Legal proceedings on domestic violence will henceforth be launched whenever anyone filed a report, without the need for an application in court by one of the spouses, Social Solidarity and Family Minister Dolores Cristina told Parliament yesterday.
Speaking at the opening of the debate on the Domestic Violence Bill, the minister explained that this provision of the bill meant reports could henceforth be filed by witnesses or relatives and proceedings could not stop before they came before a magistrate. This procedure was needed, she said, to reduce the possibility of instances of domestic violence going unreported because of threats by one of the spouses on the other. There had also been many instances in the past when reports of domestic violence were withdrawn after victims were sweet-talked or threatened to do so.
Ms Cristina said at the beginning of her hour-long introduction that the bill looked at domestic violence as any act within an intimate relationship putting the life, dignity and safety of a person in danger. This included any act of violence, be it verbal, emotional and physical or in any other form.
Domestic violence could be found everywhere, without any class or locality. Indeed, a study in the UK showed domestic violence to be the most prevalent among doctors, perhaps because of the stress of their job.
Other statistics showed that 25 per cent of women in US said they had been victims of domestic violence. The same could be said for women in Europe.
Although the victims were usually women and children, even men suffered from domestic violence, as did the elderly, persons with disability and others whose condition made them vulnerable.
The bill was meant to give the victims and possible victims the best protection possible, but she would caution that matters would not improve just on the basis of legislation. Mental and cultural shifts were required. Campaigns throughout the past 15 years had borne fruit, but a lot of education was still needed to bring about zero tolerance to domestic violence.
She said that when she started discussing the issue with others, there were those who had advised not to invent issues which did not exist.
Indeed, the biggest enemy of the victims, Ms Cristina said, had always been silence, which strengthened the roots of domestic violence.
Although the need for this law was undeniable, education was much more important. Children had to be shown that this was a problem of society because it was a problem which was inherited. In the majority of cases, victimised girls became victims when they grew up and victimised boys became aggressors.
Many asked why victims did not leave home. It appeared that many of the victims did not know what to do or they felt ashamed of outsiders, especially if they (the victims) were men.
Ms Cristina said it was only in recent years that society started waking up to the problem of domestic violence.
In Malta, the issue was first discussed at a seminar of the National Council of Women in 1987/1988.
In 1991 Minister Louis Galea set up an action team on violence on women, which started to debate domestic violence. This was followed by a forum purposely set up to see what the country's requirements were. At the time there was nothing except for Dar Merhba Bik, the country's first shelter for battered wives, set up in 1980.
The domestic violence unit was then set up and started to work within the Social Welfare Development Programme. But it was the media which had created the most awareness bringing this social wound to the fore.
The White Paper on domestic violence was published in 1998. Other shelters for women had been set up and when it came to victims' accommodation, Ms Cristina said she was confident Malta was in a superior position to other countries since there were enough spaces.
The necessary structures to support the bill, such as the Family Court, had also been set up. Much consultation had taken place, especially with the National Family Commission, the Equality Commission, the Commissioner for Children and the Coordinating Response Team. Members of these four bodies represented a wide spectrum of society including workers in the sector who were most in touch with the problem. A substantial number of the suggestions they made were taken on board.
Ms Cristina said the bill provided protection to married or formerly married couples, persons living in the same household, persons whose marriage had been dissolved or declared null, parents and their children, people living together, formally or informally engaged couples, relatives by consanguinity or affinity up to the third degree, and persons with a child in common.
It also highlighted protection for children witnessing or listening to domestic violence. The bill introduced new crimes relating the behaviour of a person who harassed another, which behavior could instill fear in others. Such harassment included stalking.
But based on British legislation, the bill was also introducing the "test of the reasonable man" which gave the person a chance to prove that he or she were not acting with bad intentions.
The bill provided for orders of protection, restraint and treatment. The court, Ms Cristina said, was being given power to prohibit an accused or any individual from approaching a person, and could even order an aggressor out of the matrimonial home. The court could order treatment for the guilty since it did not make sense to impose fines without providing treatment.
An important amendment was that to the filing of an application for steps to be taken against an aggressor. According to the Criminal Code to date, this had to be presented by the victim. But it took a woman an average of 30 incidents before lodging a report and in many cases, battered wives stopped procedures either because they were sweet talked into doing so by their aggressor or because they were threatened.
Reports could now be lodged by anyone since the problem was being recognised as a social one. And once a report was lodged, the police had to carry out their investigations and take court action.
The need for an application was being removed and once a report was lodged, the case had to be heard by a magistrate. It was only at this stage that one could ask for the procedures to be stopped explaining that the situation was not as it looked. But it was then up to the magistrate to decide whether or not to uphold such a request.
The bill was also giving the opportunity to victims to seek civil, besides criminal remedies.
As a result of the bill a Commission for Domestic Violence would be set up.
Its task was to raise awareness on and understanding of the problem, highlight areas of domestic violence where research was necessary, come up with strategies to expose domestic violence, educate the public, find ways of facilitating communication between public and private agencies and entities, set standards for care facilities for victims and perpetrators, set standards and protocols for practitioners and draw up procedures for the effective coordination on a national level of activities in the area.
The bill also spoke of an agency to provide therapy and care programmes, a role which would be performed by Appogg.
Ms Cristina said support line 179 in 2004 received 22,438 calls, substantial number of which were by people asking for help or advice.
She said that although most victims of domestic violence were women between January and September last year, of 218 reports on domestic violence 35 involved men and 24 children. Among female victims, three were over 70. Male victims also included one aged over 70.
The police attitude to such cases had improved and were preparing their own guidelines on how to act with the victims. Doctors also had a big responsibility to realise that bruising was not from falling down the stairs but from domestic violence, Ms Cristina concluded.
The debate continues today.