WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1986
36
APPROPRIATE PROTECTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
*****
A WOMAN WHO IS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NEEDS SOME SORT OF PROCEDURE THAT WILL ENABLE HER TO GO QUICKLY TO A COURT AND OBTAIN TEMPORARY RELIEF THAT WILL GIVE HER APPROPRIATE SHORT-TERM PROTECTION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL 1986, MR THOMAS SAID THAT THE BILL GAVE THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM AN INJUNCTION FROM A DISTRICT COURT ON A SIMPLE APPLICATION, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.
THE HIGH COURT WOULD ALSO HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION IN URGENT CASES OR WHERE THERE WERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SAID.
THREE TYPES OF ORDER MIGHT BE ISSUED: TO FORBID THE MOLESTATION OF THE APPLICANT OR A CHILD- TO EXCLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM THE HOME OR A PART OF THE HOME OR TO REQUIRE THE OTHER PARTY TO PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO ENTER AND REMAIN IN THE MATRIMONIAL HOME.
MR THOMAS SAID THAT THE BILL WAS ALSO OF INTEREST TO MEN BECAUSE +THEY ARE THE MAIN CULPRITS AND SO THEY WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY ORDERS MADE UNDER THE BILL+.
+ IN ADDITION, THE PROTECTION OF THE BILL APPLIES TO MEN AS WELL AS TO WOMEN AND IT IS RIGHT THAT IT SHOULD DO SO, HE SAID.
MR THOMAS QUOTED STATISTICS OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOWED THAT OUT OF 838 CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RECORDED DURING THE YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1986, THERE WERE 51 CASES OF MEN BEING THE VICTIMS.
MR THOMAS DESCRIBED IN PARTICULAR THREE FEATURES OF THE BILL.
FIRST, IT APPLIED TO COHABITEES AS WELL AS TO MARRIED PERSONS, THOUGH SPECIAL PROVISION WAS MADE TO REQUIRE THE JUDGE TO HAVE REGARD TO THE PERMANENCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP.
SECOND, THE BILL WOULD ENABLE A JUDGE TO ATTACH A POWER OF ARREST TO HIS ORDER IF HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE OTHER PARTY HAD ALREADY CAUSED ACTUAL BODILY HARM TO THE APPLICANT OR A CHILD. MEANING THAT IF THE VIOLENCE CONTINUED THE POLICE COULD MAKE AN ARREST.
THIRD, AN EXCLUSION ORDER WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS OR TENANCIES.
/MR THOMAS