Women’s groups hail CCJ ruling in spousal abuse fight

By Jenique Belgrave

Women’s groups have hailed the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJ) landmark overturning of the Court of Appeal’s decision to back a magistrate who dismissed a woman’s application for a protection order against her ex-partner.

Seen as a step in the right direction in the fight against domestic abuse on the island, the National Organisation of Women (NOW) and the Advocates Against Domestic Abuse (AADA), however, express extreme disappointment that the matter had to proceed all the way to the CCJ – the nation’s final appeal court – to obtain the necessary action.

In a 269-page ruling, the regional judicial tribunal heavily criticized the decisions of the Barbadian magistrate and appeal courts concerning the woman’s plea for a domestic protection order under the Domestic Violence (Protection Orders) Act against her ex-partner, with whom she shares a child. In particular, the CCJ knocked the courts for giving weight to the appellant’s response as a layperson regarding whether as a former partner, she belonged to the categories of “spouse”, “cohabitational relationship”, “domestic relationship” or “visiting relationship” as defined by the law. The local courts granted the protection order for the child but not for the mother.

The CCJ said the magistrate and the appeal court’s majority both “agreed that a protection order was not granted to the appellant because she ‘took herself out of the definition’ by saying to the magistrate that she was ‘none of these things’. It is regrettable that the magistrate should think that she had provided sufficient protection for the child by making an interim protection order for the child, but without making any order for the protection of the child’s mother in these circumstances.”

The judges emphasized that Parliament could not have intended such a restrictive approach in interpreting the amended Domestic Violence Protection Order Act. “Such a narrow approach,” the tribunal added, “would leave the other exposed to the risk of violence without the realization that it was in the best interest of the child to protect the mother as well as the child.”

The CCJ declared that the decision of the magistrate, upheld by the majority of the Court of Appeal, that “the appellant was not a ‘former spouse’ within…the amended Act, was wholly incorrect”.

Calling the CCJ decision “a day of significant shame for Barbados”, former president of NOW Dr Marsha Hinds Myrie  said it was regrettable that despite the island being a signatory to a number of conventions, including the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), such a case had to be taken to the CCJ.

She told Barbados TODAY:  “It has gotten to the point in the country where we have no choice as advocates on behalf of women who are experiencing these life-altering situations that we now have to go to the CCJ to be able to get the CCJ to help the judiciary in Barbados to function and to interpret what should really be human decency and common sense.”

Hinds Myrie said that the case was the second in a series of strategic litigation cases that her organization was involved with in trying to obtain justice for women; the first of which was representing female wards at the Government Industrial School.

She also revealed that NOW is currently working with another female whose case may also end up before the CCJ justices.

“We are at the appeal stage and if it does not go the way that we think it should go, we will be back before the CCJ very shortly with another case in relation to how women are treated in Barbados when they are trying to secure protection orders,” said Hinds Myrie

“I am not just talking about protection orders in instances of intimate partner violence, because we equate a protection order with man or woman violence. Domestic violence can also happen among brothers and sisters. It can happen among other family relations, and whenever women find themselves on the receiving end of violence, our courts are bungling the issues and re-victimising survivors. It is unacceptable.”

AADA head Barbara Daniel-Goddard said that while she was pleased with the outcome, Barbados’ courts must simply do better in aiding victims of abuse.

“It is sad that it had to get to the CCJ,” she said, stating that the courts must become more aware of the effects of domestic abuse.

Admitting that a protection order does not guarantee that abusers will not attempt to commit the act again, she stressed that it is a starting point for many victims.

She said: “It is extremely poignant and absolutely wonderful that the people at the CCJ used their common sense and looked at the definition of and the meaning behind the court protection order and saw that the ramifications are so great, and also the fact that they recognized that we need to establish specialized problem-solving courts not only in Barbados but across the Caribbean.”

She noted that the impact of the CCJ decision remains to be seen in how the local courts will deal with such cases going forward.

“It could be a major turning point for us in Barbados, and if our justice system takes it on board and starts delivering upon it, that knock-on effect can see the rest of the Caribbean also saying ‘we better act upon it’ and that will bring a new dawn for victims of domestic abuse…It will really be significant,” she said.

Daniel-Goddard also insisted that Barbados must reach the point where men or women reporting cases of abuse are met by independent personnel at the police station who can provide them with the necessary aid and direction through their complaint.

jeniquebelgrave@barbadostoday.bb