Comments on: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill

By: Exclusive: Law Commission thinks domestic violence bill goes too far | No Right Turn

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:09:42 +0000

Exclusive: Law Commission thinks domestic violence bill goes too far…

The government’s Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill goes too far, according to a report [RTF] from the Law Commission.

The bill would allow police officers to issue on-the-spot “police orders” to those suspected of domestic violence, exiling t…

By: The domestic violence bill and the BORA II | No Right Turn

The domestic violence bill and the BORA II | No Right Turn — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:03:06 +0000

Last week, I highlighted some problems with the government’s Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The bill would allow police officers to respond to domestic violence by issuing alleged offenders with police…

By: Bashing Bills « LudditeJourno

Bashing Bills « LudditeJourno — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:27:33 +0000

[...] Anita at KiwiPolitico suggests “on the spot” protection orders be reviewed by a judge as quickly as possible [...]

By: Jum

Jum — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:14:58 +0000

Is there a ‘yeah right’ factor here in that the perpetrator is sent from home and stays away like a good citizen – what risk is there that he/she will return to knock out any show of new independence on the part of the endangered spouse?

Intimidation can be mouthed for the spouse and no one else to see. The pattern would already be there and recognised as a real threat.

Good to see altered thinking that the family should not have to leave home to seek refuge. Otherwise that means they get punished again.

Also, good that the onus is off the person to have to make a decision re the perp. Wasn’t a trial done in Hamilton a few years back doing just that?

I also heard a previous police commissioner (might have been Robinson) talk about the rule of the 12 f’s being used to describe/prove domestic violence e.g. f-fear, f-finances, f-family in danger, etc. But no one else seems to remember that, even the local police when I asked about it at a court system open day, once.

By: Anita

Anita — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:43:57 +0000

Eddie Clark,

The other thing I think needs to be addressed is the ability to have this expunged from the record after the fact.

Yes they should.

Making judicial reviews possible means they could be reviewed out of existence (so expunged), but maybe there also needs to be a period of time after which they stop being visible given the low evidential threshold and the fact a formal protection order could be applied for.

My hunch is that at the moment Protection Orders (under the Domestic Violence Act) are never taken off someone’s record, and as they’re not convictions they’re not covered by the Clean Slate provisions. I wonder if that’s true.

By: Eddie Clark

Eddie Clark — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:03:37 +0000

The other thing I think needs to be addressed is the ability to have this expunged from the record after the fact. Say due to genuine police error or, less charitably, exaggerated evidence given by police, the order is upheld, lasts for 5 days, then lapses. Accused abuser goes home, and there is never any violence. Remember, these orders can be given even when the person who is allegedly being abused doesn’t want one.

In these circumstances, there would be a black mark saying ‘probably abuser’ against the person’s name for an indefinite period of time. And you couldn’t appeal this after it has lapsed – it would be a moot legal issue and the courts wouldn’t see it. So I think there needs to be either
(a) a method of challenging the order after it has expired or;
(b) a provision in the Act stating that, in the absence of any further orders of this kind, or protection orders, the police delete their records of these orders after, say, 2 years.

Thoughts?

By: Deborah

Deborah — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:38:51 +0000

Ah! Yes… good. I like the idea of the order being reconfirmed by the courts as soon as possible. It’s another way of getting the balance right between the woman’s right to be free from violence, and the man’s right to due process, but I think a more effective one than the way I originally proposed. I would be very happy to support a submission to this effect.

By: Lee - MWT

Lee - MWT — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:44:54 +0000

Lew – it need not be shouted from the rooftops. Anita, fair enough – but i can’t see how what I asked infers tht the Police are being asked to judge events any more than your option. The options they are presented with are decided by the judicial process either way, they simply enforce them. As for ‘it’s hard to argue being banned from ones home is not a penalty’ – I’d suggest that ‘home’ is a misnomer: perhaps a better definition may be: “a structure within which one and one’s children may be beaten by family with the complicity of inadequate laws to protect the most vulnerable.”?
having said that, despite my picky attitude about some of what you have said, on reflection, I have reread your original point; “The first day that courts are open the Police should then go before the court and have the order reconfirmed with everyone involved able to be heard. The court can then either confirm the order, reject the order or, potentially, issue a normal protection order. The order itself should be subject to the normal review process.” and think you are absolutely correct.
Alcohol giveth and alcohol taketh away, I guess…

By: Anita

Anita — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:36 +0000

Lee,

Two things come to my mind. First, Why should it be the onus of the police to have the order reconfirmed, shouldn’t the person who has been barred be the one driving any challenge to his/her suitability to regain access? By the same token, why should it be on ‘the first day the courts are open’ as if the world revolves around the particular needs of an individual who has been barred for exhibiting enough violence or intention to commit it that the police have seen fit to exclude them?

Because the Police’s job is to enforce the law, not to judge events or hand down sentences – that is the role of the judiciary.

By letting the Police take immediate action they can enforce the law and we can keep people safe, but their judgement and the penalty they impose (it’s hard to argue being banned from ones home is not a penalty) should go through the judicial process.

I’m not suggesting a huge complex process. Where it’s uncontested (and I suspect many will be) a judge checking and reconfirming it would be a 5 min job.

By: Lew

Lew — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:17:07 +0000

Lee: ‘Sure, I’ll go now, but I’ll see you Monday afternoon, Bitch…”

Do you think the courts would allow him to return home if he exhibited this sort of behaviour?

By: Lee - MWT

Lee - MWT — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:36:43 +0000

A revolving door-process for abusers?
“The first day that courts are open the Police should then go before the court and have the order reconfirmed with everyone involved able to be heard. The court can then either confirm the order, reject the order or, potentially, issue a normal protection order. The order itself should be subject to the normal review process.” Now, I may be displaying my ignorance of the law, but, here goes…
Two things come to my mind. First, Why should it be the onus of the police to have the order reconfirmed, shouldn’t the person who has been barred be the one driving any challenge to his/her suitability to regain access? By the same token, why should it be on ‘the first day the courts are open’ as if the world revolves around the particular needs of an individual who has been barred for exhibiting enough violence or intention to commit it that the police have seen fit to exclude them? Again, the offender should be driving the process to have their situation reviewed rather than the courts, police and those offended against, having to set their agendas according to some arbitrarily imposed deadline. And if it takes a little longer, perhaps it will deter one from a second offence.
I don’t like the idea of an abuser saying ‘Sure, I’ll go now, but I’ll see you Monday afternoon, Bitch…” because he knows there is a likelihood that he will be empowered by the courts to return home, simply by doing nothing.