MPs insist on quick action to stop aggressors

Labour MP Joe Brincat said yesterday that the Domestic Violence Bill needed to include a mechanism for the courts to be able to issue protection orders as soon as instances of domestic violence were reported.

He said in Parliament that while the intentions of the Bill were good, the way the government was seeking to curb domestic violence was pedantic at best.

Dr Brincat argued that as the system stands at present, no immediate action can be taken against aggressors, a situation which was causing great hardship for the victims of domestic violence. Action in court could only be taken after four days.

The Bill provided for the issue of restriction orders against the perpetrators. This might help to reduce the suffering of the victims involved, but duty magistrates should be empowered to issue such orders immediately, when necessary. Some cases might be more urgent than others for some medical reason, such as schizophrenia.

The conditions in restraining orders should be more severe in the case of domestic violence committed in the presence of minors.

The reasons for domestic violence could be various, but in any case it should ideally be nipped in the bud with tailor-made solutions devised by the magistrate hearing the case.

Concluding, Dr Brincat said the Maltese word for harassment (iddejjaq) had too vast a definition and should be revised.

Justyne Caruana (MLP) said victims of domestic violence should be encouraged to proceed legally against the perpetrator so that eventually such victims could lead a normal life. But the Maltese legal system has to provide the necessary structures of support and protection.

Although social workers, mediators and the police are doing their best to intervene in cases of domestic violence, this lack of structures was problematic.

The present lack of support services was leading to a situation where the victims were reluctant to start proceedings in court. When a victim did commence such proceedings, the most difficult part was when the victim was required to give evidence against the perpetrator. In such cases, there should be greater use of video conferencing.

Dr Caruana also referred to that part of the law where proceedings in court could be stopped by the victim. In such cases it should be the court that should decide whether to end proceedings or not, not the victim.

Dr Caruana said the problem of violence existed even among young couples who were not yet married. In this case their problem should be addressed before they get married.

She referred to the restraining orders that are provided in the Bill. She argued that the Bill should be clear on what level of proof was required.

Lastly, she referred to a clause in the Bill providing that cases of domestic violence in court should be heard within four days of the filing of the application. She argued that given the urgency of such cases, this four-day period was not a reasonable one.

Concluding, Dr Caruana expressed the hope that this bill would not go the way of other legislation which were there on paper but hardly ever implemented. Care should also be taken to see that the judgments handed down to the perpetrators of domestic violence should go further than a few derisory months, as was sometimes the case. In actual fact this helped neither the victims nor the perpetrators themselves.

Joe Cassar (PN) said this Bill was long awaited by many suffering people, and he was sure they were satisfied by what was being produced.

The definition of domestic violence had to be seen from various angles. The Bill did not go into detail on this definition, possibly to leave it to the discretion of the courts. Several countries, however, gave detailed definitions of domestic violence, including violence which caused injuries, premeditated damages to property and belongings, harassment, stalking and intimidation, indecent behaviour and threats.

Various countries also defined the people who could be considered as victims under domestic violence legislation. Australia, for example, included married couples and couples in intimate relationships, people who were separated but were living together at the time when the violence was committed, relatives of the victim and people in informal relations such as foster parents.

Dr Cassar observed that domestic violence had the highest level of repeat victimisation, with 35 per cent of households abroad reporting more than two instances within five weeks of domestic violence. A third of domestic violence in the UK started during pregnancies or increased during pregnancy. In the UK two women were killed by their husbands or former husbands every week.

Any government in considering domestic violence legislation had to consider prevention, protection and support to the victims, direct and indirect such as children who witnessed the violence. Psychologically, children who witnessed domestic violence suffered as much as the victims. In many cases they could end up copying such violent behaviour in adulthood. They could also remain in a state of shock or depression, withdrawing into themselves, bedwetting or running away from home.

A dissertation made in Malta on women who suffered domestic violence found that in many cases, women waited for 15 years before reporting abuse, only doing so when they had nothing to lose. This was alarming. It underlined the need for mothers and children to be afforded protection as soon as domestic violence became known. Indeed protection should also be provided to all those who could be required to give evidence on cases of domestic violence.

When protection orders were issued, he felt there should be a mechanism for long-term protection, extending even when an aggressor was released from prison because many victims continued to be terrified all their life.

On supervision of children, Dr Cassar said studies in New Zealand showed the benefits of formal supervised access to children by social workers and other carers for structured, long term attention. There should also be a system where the children themselves could discuss the access there should be to them.

It was good that the law sought to prevent situations where it was the victims, not the aggressors, who had to move out of their home.

Dr Cassar said the US had made a good move when it declared October as domestic violence awareness month, something which could be adopted here.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.