Protection Orders
August 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm by David FarrarHaving in the last couple of years the motivation to discover more about how protection and harrassment orders work, I am extremely supportive of the review which slams the current system – and it is a shame Judges have rushed out to defend it.
Far too many women (yes I know it is not only women) especially live in fear of ex partners who routinely ignore protection orders, and face little or no sanction for it. And some fo them are dead.
Putting aside for now, the situation where there are children involved (as I am aware false accusations can and do get made), I think the process should be much easier for someone to get a protection order, but most of all breaches of them should have near automatic penalties.
If someone breaches a protection order the Police should have it an assigned priority to go find the person, and lock them up overnight until they go before a Judge first thing.
And if they breach it a second time they should be given a custodial sentence to protect the protectee.
Now if kids are involved, one does need a different regime, because such orders can mean they block a parent from their kids – which should be a last resort. But if there are no kids involved, then I would be very hard line.
The sad reality is so called protection orders rarely do protect, as this case study in the Herald shows. The Herald editorial is not too far from my own views.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
It is simply a reflection of the lawlessness pervading this nation from the Government downwards, as a result of predictable lack of law enforcement.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Neville Robertson’s work has long been discredited as being based on ideology instead of sound research parameters.
Meanwhile, independent studies prove time and time again, that both sexes are equally responsible for domestic violence, yet the abuse industry inevitably refers to a perpetrator as being a ‘man’ and a victim as being a ‘woman’,
Malicious false accusations of domestic violence are at a pandemic level and these are often made in order to gain protection orders, a way by which an all too often innocent man can be found guilty until he proves his innocence. By that stage he has inevitably lost his children, who have became yet more nameless victims of the system.
Protection orders allow an individual to make unfounded accusations against an innocent individual for malicious purposes.
They should be made harder, not easier, to obtain.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Amazing that the vast majority of Kiwis struggle on without any influence from protection orders, one legged orphaned nun benefits, subsidised Moooori poets, non- work seeking welfare beneficiaries, abused darlings who stay with the abuse, high achieving/high status depressed political science graduates sucking on the public teat.
We struggle on and get to pay for the massive wank.
Economic reality is going to be pretty to watch, tho it may take a generation.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
How can protection orders protect anyone from someone who is wilfully bent on breaking the law.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Dad4Justice would’ve gone hammer-and-tongs on this thread – what a bugger he’s banned from Kiwiblog for 2 months, eh?
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Jesus Frank, not another excuser of NZers taking personal responsibility.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I have my criticisms of the Family Court (and the judiciary in general come to that), but Ruth Busch and Neville Robertson might care to reflect on this notion: There actually is a difference between the legislature and the judiciary. If associate law professor Busch doesn’t have her head around that concept, then I’m not surprised the Waikato Law School isn’t exactly the most respected in the world.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
so tina is a racist..as well as everything else..
quite the ‘package’..that one..
(one to make you fellow righties ‘proud’..eh..?
just another racist bigot..
who hates poets..too boot..
i mean..who hates poets..?
you’d have to be ‘barking’..eh..?
good grief..!..)
thanks for making it easy for us tina..
now we know just to ignore you..
as another (racist) irrelevancy..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Pity the mendicants can’t “ignore” me philu sweetie.
I pray for the day
See what you can arrange
They want my money.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
How can protection orders protect anyone from someone who is wilfully bent on breaking the law.
They can’t – no piece of paper can. Which is why the right to self-defense – in particular, armed self-defense – needs to be protected by law.
Vote:August 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I know that a not insubstantial number of women were abusing the system as it used to be, getting protection orders against partners for reasons other than violence, which I as a female find repulsive. Nowadays though, I believe the judges’ interpretation of the Act has swung far too far the other way. It is extremely hard to get a protection order at all, especially if you don’t qualify for legal aid you’re up for at least a $1200 legal bill. Plus, if the Family Court does grant you a protection order, the judges prefer to make sure the other party is notified and you have to stand up in Court against them – a process which can take weeks, all the while the victim remains unprotected. I understand the need for natural justice, but this needs to be balanced against those in danger. In my mind the best solution would be for the decisions to be made by a different body than the Family Court. Also, the judge should be able to aware the protection order immediately, and then allow the alleged perpetrator his natural justice once the victim is safe.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
They can’t – no piece of paper can. Which is why the right to self-defense – in particular, armed self-defense – needs to be protected by law.
And reading that, I realise the irony – which is why the right to revolt against improper Government needs to protected by law, too
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
What I heard on the wireless was that Judges take without notice applications for protection orders as one of the most, if not the most, serious part of their job. I think that is a fair defence – certainly in my experience Judges take this part of their job seriously.
Do not forget that a protection order, without notice, is one of the few abridgments to the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty.
From what I can see the study has a number of flaws – the focus on women alone being one of them. Some of the most serious protection orders I have applied for have not been women.
There are always exceptions to prove the rule but I would submit that it should always be remembered that Judges have to balance a person’s right to immediate protection against every person’s right to live their life unfettered by the state.
The system is not perfect, enforcement is a constant difficulty for the police (for example), but there is also an other side to many of these applications.
I would be interested to know, for example, how many without notice protection orders are successfully defended (AFTER the event).
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 1:23 am
There are a few things to bear in mind in regards to Protection Orders.
First, before a police officer can arrest for breach of the protection order only, they arequired under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to take several things into account.
These include the serious of the offence, the time delay involved, the restraining influence on the offender, the views of the victim.
Secondly, many women that have the protection orders choose to live with their partner’s whom they have the order against.
Thirdly, until the recent Evidence Act came into force, to secure a conviction for a breach of protection order in court required the victim to give evidence against her partner in person. Now, in limited circumstances, if she is not available to give evidence, her signed statement may be used to secure a conviction, also it is a lot easier for her to give evidence in person by an alternative way.
Four, it is not unknown for women and sometimes men to use the protection order to manipulate their partners to get what they want in situations; sometimes it takes the wisdom of Solomon to discern truth from lies when dealing with these situations.
Five,
Even if a conviction is secured, unless there are more serious charges laid arrising from the breach, or unless there is a lot of conviction history relating to breaches, the penalties imposed are usually negligable.
One idea that may happen one day is for police to be able to impose protection orders in situations where they feel it would be appropriate.
Corresponing sufficient penalties need also to be imposed.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
yes, I would be interested in that figure too. I see the point about natural justice, but if the person accused has the right to appeal immediately, surely this is not very different from how accused criminals are treated today?
You also didn’t mention the fact that multiple breaches of protection orders that are awarded are occurring with little action from the Police. The way the system is now many women don’t even get to apply for protection orders because the idea of having to confront the defendant in court, often while having to wait in the same waiting area with the defendant. Also, many do not qualify legal aid and face substantial legal bills which they cannot afford.
I do not want to see innocent men hassled by the Courts, but I believe there must be a way of improving the system for them and for women who are being failed by the system as it is.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Christ, when will evryone realise that passing a law dont do anything. And , although scary, the country is approaching a time when the police REALLY do not have the resources to enforce laws (EG: the ‘stolen’ body that was buried in the BOP last week – the local policeman said they didnt have the resources to enforce the court order).
Making stronger laws and (attempting ) to lock up everyone isnt going to work. Frankly, the police cant even start to look at claims of child smacking, let alone all this other crap.
The only thing that will work is that people and their families and friends have to take control of their own lives. Unfortunately at the moment many younger people have been educated in a system that pretty much leaves most of them eunichs when they come out of it. they have been told all thru their school what great persons they are and how important they are; they havent been exposed to those less desirable activities that are really part of growing up ie: being bullied and having your lunch stolen and all those things that actually prepare you for the rest of life. – but then in the real world where no one gives a rats arse about all that stuff, they find they just cant handle reality.
they will have to harden up
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Also protection orders are given out willie nillie without consideration about what ACTUALLY happened.
I know of one case where the person didnt know what she signed in the affidavid and had the effect of completely cutting off all the kids from the father. Luckily for the father the two 18 year old kids instructed the mother that it was rubbish and were able to see them.
Fathers Day is coming up and the poor bastard has had to turn down invitations from the other kids to visit due to no ‘express permission” from the mother.
The both of them were ‘Lawyered Up”
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Professor David Ferguson is not very impressed by the so called research by a sycophantic male feminists and a man hating lesbian.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/podcasts/morningreport.rss
The fact that Ruth Busch is a man hating lesbian is relevant. It is a reasonable to complain about this government funded bias research as if they funded Hone Harawira to show that Maori are discriminated against.
Not all lesbians hate men but a significant number of them do. One only has to listen to Busch to see how bias she is. Some might remember the Herald ad for Telethon in the 80’s with a picture of four baby girls with the caption, “One in four of these girls will be sexually abused by the time they are 18, half be they own father”. This was the result of “lesbian research”.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Waikato Abuse Study “lightweight, revisionist, and wrong” says Direct Democracy.
“The recent Ministry of Women’s Affairs – commissioned report on Domestic Violence conducted by Waikato University law professor Ruth Busch and psychologist Neville Robertson is lightweight, revisionist, and wrong” says Deputy Leader of the Direct Democracy Party, Steve Taylor.
“The most fundamental requirement of sound research is “check your sources”. The reference by the study authors to the “rule of thumb” myth is just laughable. The “rule of thumb” is simply feminist fiction. It is not to be found in William Blackstone’s treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating. That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science”.
“The sample group of 43 women (only) is both statistically way too small and overtly sexist, conveniently forgetting that women are responsible for over 50% of all domestic violence, violence usually carried out by women on men, or even worse, children”.
“From a research perspective, it is simply ethically inconceivable that no judges were interviewed for the research study – the very people who are being criticized by the authors for their decisions as to whether or not to issue or uphold Protection Orders have been deliberately omitted from the equation – in the words of the Four Square ad “how convenient”.
“The recommendations made by the authors of this study also deserve further scrutiny. Having an applicant and a lawyer present their case for a without notice Protection Order in the absence of equal representation by the other partner is an abuse of due process and the rule of law. Having a named party to a protection order being arrested on a “cause to suspect a breach” of the order leaves named parties on Protection orders completely powerless against false accusations, and vindictive ex-spouses calling up the police for perhaps no other reason than they didn’t get their own way on a minor issue of disagreement”.
“Perhaps one of the most worrying recommendations in the report is one which is logically self- contradictory: on the one hand, the authors propose that many women do not report domestic violence as CYFS may take their children, a situation that is termed by the authors as “deeply problematic”. In the next breath, the authors recommend CYFS Social Workers (over 40% who hold no tertiary qualification to practice Social Work) assume a specialist responsibility for screening for domestic violence, such a responsibility being well outside the competence of the CYFS workforce”.
“As if this wasn’t enough, the authors then affirm the junk science that gave birth to the “battered women’s syndrome” misnomer, a revisionist term coined by Lenore Walker, author of “The Battered Woman” (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1979)”. This work has been thoroughly debunked as being unscholarly, subjective, hearsay, sexist, biased, and absent of a representative sample or even hard data”, and to make a recommendation that the Care of Children Act should presume no contact for fathers with their children is an outrage”.
“It is important to ensure the physical, emotional, and psychological safety of all people be a default position that is protected in law and society – however marginalizing one group (men), for the sake of another group (women), on the back of poor and ill-informed data, is a recipe for further family breakdown and unwarranted state intervention. Domestic violence does happen: however it happens to both sexes, and a radical re-assessment of current policy is needed in order to redress the significant ignorance that exists at State level of this fact”.
“Given the above summary, the fact that these same authors (affirmed by the Ministry of Woman’s Affairs) have previously been responsible for 35 law changes in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 shows just how vacuous, undiscerning and methodologically lax our lawmakers have become” says Mr Taylor.
ENDS
Kind Regards,
Steve Taylor,
Vote:Deputy Leader,
Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand
http://www.ddp.co.nz