'Hellish' domestic violence case prompts court to call for reform

A magistrate has called for a reform in domestic violence risk assessments pointing out all victims should be treated equally after she sentenced a man to jail for threatening his mother in a "hellish" case of domestic abuse.

In handing down the judgement, Magistrate Abigail Critien noted that asessements of domestic abuse cases should not make a distinction in the relationship between victim and perpetrator as all cases are "equally serious".

“The time has come for all alleged domestic violence offences to be treated in an equal and uniform manner without any distinction of the parties involved,” Critien said.

A 43-year-old man was jailed for three years after being found guilty of threatening and harassing his 65-year-old mother in what was described as a "hellish" case of domestic abuse driven by his drug addiction.

Kenneth Zammit from Ta’ Xbiex, who is unemployed, was reported to the police by his mother on January 30 following an incident earlier that month. The woman explained that her son had a drug issue and had been using heroin since he was 16. 

She told the court how she supported him financially and endured death threats and abuse. "It was hell", she said.

On January 18, the woman woke her son up at about 6.20am and asked him to leave the house because she had to go out and did not want him there. Zammit allegedly threatened to stab her to death.

The woman told the police that her son demanded money from her, and she was giving him between €10 to €30 a day. When she could no longer put up with him, she gave him €320 to stay at a hostel. However, he returned to the residence.

In her report, the woman said she received money through Revolut from unknown individuals, which she would then pass to her son. Following the incident, the woman went to live elsewhere. On one occasion she returned to her Ta’ Xbiex residence to pick up her stuff and found another person she did not recognise, along with her son. Neither of them noticed she was in the house.

In court, the woman testified that her son brought strangers into the house, sometimes even at 6am, mentioning how on New Year's Day she had found an unknown man sleeping in her house. She also spoke about her son’s use of crack cocaine, his dependence on her for money, and the fear he instilled in her, adding that she found things missing from her home.

A doctor testified that the accused had asked the police to take him to Detox upon his arrest. Zammit tested positive to cocaine, opiates and buprenorphine.

The court observed that the evidence clearly showed Zammit's behaviour and lifestyle were consistent with that of someone who was unemployed and struggling with drug addiction

It also observed that Zammit harassed his mother so much, that she gave him money to reside at a hostel, however, he still returned to the apartment. Moreover, he passed several comments about things she said or done, exercising control over her. It was also clear that the woman feared her son. She also continued working despite qualifying for retirement to financially support her son and her grandson.

Apart from sentencing him to three years in prison, the court also imposed a treatment order of five years to help him address his drug habit even after he leaves jail. The court also issued a restraining order in favour of the mother for a period of three years.

'All cases are equally serious'

In delivering judgement, the court raised concerns over the way risk assessments are handled in domestic violence cases, particularly when the abuse does not involve intimate partners.

In this case risk assessors used the non-Intimate Partner Violence (non-IPV) risk assessment which differs from the standard scoring system typically applied when assessing risk following a report by a victim, such as the Danger Assessment tool.

Magistrate Abigail Critien said this approach created a needless distinction, as the mother clearly suffered prolonged domestic abuse that left her with “acute psychological effects,” primarily persistent fear, even when testifying in court.

“The court cannot understand why such a distinction is made in how victims are assessed and treated,” the magistrate said. “All alleged victims of domestic violence seek help because the aggressor’s behaviour falls within the legal definition of domestic violence.”

Critien underlined that the law does not differentiate between intimate and non-intimate partner violence, stressing that all cases should be treated with the same seriousness. She criticised the current protocol for excluding a scoring risk assessment in this case, simply because the violence was between a son and his mother.

“This is a clear case of serious domestic violence which deserved a risk assessment which gives a score that could have been presented in the case, however, since the relationship between the alleged agressor and the alleged victim is that of mother and son, the risk assessment with a score was not done.”

“This practice does not make any legal sense and creates a useless distinction between the victims and an anomaly since no document is presented in the proceedings which sheds light on what the victim would have said in such an assessment,” the court said.

The risk assessors themselves admitted that the non-IPV evaluation was more a form of emotional support than a court-admissible document.

Calling for reform, the magistrate said it was time for a unified, standardised protocol for all domestic violence cases, regardless of the relationship between victim and perpetrator.

“The time has come for all alleged domestic violence offences to be treated in an equal and uniform manner without any distinction of the parties involved,” she said. 

"The current protocol gives the wrong impression that if domestic violence is alleged but is not between intimate partners, then it is less serious." 

Police inspector Christian Cauchi prosecuted. Legal aid lawyer Yanika Bugeja represented the accused. Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Jacob Magri were parte civile for the mother.