Bill falls short of Labour government proposals - Helena Dalli

The new bill on domestic violence falls short of proposals drafted by the Labour government in a White Paper, begging the question: Why had the government waited seven years to move this legislation, Opposition spokesman Helena Dalli said in Parliament yesterday.

Speaking during the debate on the bill, Ms Dalli said the government had repeatedly delayed the publication of this bill, in the same way as it had delayed the setting up of the Family Court, which had also been proposed by the Labour government. Such delays had meant greater hardship for the victims.

An average of one case of domestic violence was reported every day, and that was thought to be just the tip of the iceberg, with many scared of coming out.

Although this bill did not go as far as Labour had planned, the Opposition would vote in favour, but on assuming office it would improve it so that better protection could be given for people at risk.

Clearly, the government should have better consulted people who had hands-on experience on domestic violence such as lawyers, doctors, social workers, psychologists, the police and administrators of shelters. Had NGOs been consulted?

It was good a thing that in terms of this bill, anyone and not just the spouses concerned could report domestic violence. A report, once lodged, had to be followed up by court action which could not be stopped before a hearing by a magistrate.

But the bill had other stumbling blocks. For example, in terms of the bill, the onus of proof would be on the victim. This was wrong. Once domestic violence was being seen as a crime against society, it should be the prosecution, not the victim, who should prove the case. It should be the duty of the police to prosecute a case in court. One should seek to prevent the possibility of the aggressor being in a position to intimidate the victim in order to halt proceedings.

The court, however, should consider any submissions by the victim that the aggressor was being forgiven, should that be the case.

The bill, Ms Dalli said, was vague in some areas, leading to problems of interpretation. It was not enough for the minister to have said that she wanted to "keep it simple" in order not to exclude anything. For example, in contrast to the Labour White Paper, this bill did not define domestic violence. This definition could include beating, threats, intimidation, stalking, illegal arrest, rape and molestation, damages and moral violence. That included verbal violence.

Moral or verbal violence could be one of the harshest forms of domestic violence and was one of the most difficult to prove. She knew of a case where the husband forced the wife to eat from a bowl placed on the floor, but the police found it difficult to believe the victim.

It was not enough for the minister to have claimed that harassment, which was mentioned in the bill, included stalking, because some argued that it did not. And in any case, harassment in the context of domestic violence was different than in other areas, such as employment relations. This bill should have defined harassment and included stalking.

The bill provided for the setting up of a Commission on Domestic Violence. But the functions of this commission were already being carried out by the Appogg agency. The setting up of this commission, therefore, contradicted government claims that it wanted to avoid overlapping.

Would there also be an agency specifically on domestic violence or would this role be assumed by Appogg?

The minister had not said much when she spoke on Monday. Ms Dalli felt this role should be retained by Appogg as the one-stop shop for all social-related issues, more so as such issues were usually inter-related.

The bill also provided for a test of sound mind. But once there was violence, the aggressor should answer for his actions.

Ms Dalli said it was also important that the aggressor was removed from the matrimonal home immediately. It was not right that the victims suffered twice over - first by being the target of violence and then by having to move out. This often caused hardship and disruption to the children. Clearly, ways had to be found to shelters to house the aggressors and, where needed, they should be given assistance, such as when they abused of drugs or drink.

This bill, Ms Dalli said, made no mention of bail.

In terms of the bill, perpetrator could practically do what he wished at the matrimonal home as long as he did not threaten life or cause arson. It was well known that aggressors often caused substantial damages, such as smashing dinner sets. This was prejudicial to the community of acquests. Surely, she said, such persons should be made to answer for these actions as well.

The bill also fell short when it spoke of "grievous bodily harm". How was that to be defined? In other laws, grievous meant permanent disability. That would eliminate injuries such as most fractures.

Being slapped four times in the face every day was also not grievous bodily harm, yet the mental scars that this caused were just as serious. In the context of domestic violence, the most minor violation of the integrity of a person should be considered as a crime.

Ms Dalli underlined the importance of police training because it was from the police that the victims of domestic violence first sought assistance. In this case, the police also ended up being social workers.

Ms Dalli said that during the committee stage, the opposition would be moving amendments she hoped the government would uphold in order to have a law that truly met its purpose and would not need to be improved within a short time.