MPs call for tighter domestic violence law

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo yesterday called for a tightening of the Domestic Violence Bill to cover all possible instances of violence.

Dr Azzopardi said it is good that stalking was being seen as part of the problem of domestic violence but he felt that stalking should also be considered a crime by its very nature. One could stalk even through the internet but there was no reference to this in Maltese legislation. Stalking was an old phenomenon which could drive people mad.

He welcomed the fact that there would be stiffer penalties for rape and violent indecent assault but he felt the maximum penalty of three months imprisonment for harassment was too little. Harassment could take various forms and he felt the courts should be given greater latitude to apply the punishment that fitted the crime, according to the circumstances.

A harasser was described in the bill as a person "who pursues a course of conduct" which amounts to harassment. The minister, Dr Azzopardi said, needed to explain what was meant exactly with "course of conduct" because when there were doubts in the courts, judges referred to the parliamentary debates. The legislator should also give an indicative, though not exhaustive list of what could be understood by harassment. This was done in the British law.

It was also good that in terms of the new law, court proceedings on domestic violence could be started even on the basis of a complaint by a person who was not the victim. He felt, however, that the provision of the law saying that a case had to be appointed for hearing within four days could be too long. Even two days could be too long in such circumstances.

Dr Azzopardi pointed out that threats which were not written only amounted to a contravention in the Criminal Code and carried only a small fine. The Criminal Code should therefore be amended for threats to be considered a crime even if they were not written.

Dr Azzopardi observed that the British Telecommunications Act, provided that domestic violence could also be caused through the telephone. This was not covered in Maltese law. Indeed there should be legislation to provide for telephone calls or SMSs with threatening content to be considered a crime.

Another law which was lacking in Malta but was found in the UK was the Malicious Communications Act. This covered harassment through messages left in places for the victim to find, such as stuck to the victim's car windscreen.

This was not covered in Malta unless the message was equivalent to a threat. Yet many messages could amount to harassment without being threatening.

Dr Azzopardi also insisted that action against the property of the husband or the wife by the other spouse should also be considered as an action of domestic violence, even when no direct violence was involved.

On the guarantee which a court could order to prevent further incidents, Dr Azzopardi said it was positive this was being changed to a maximum of Lm1,000 but Malta should adopt the British system, where the guarantee could also be demanded even before a crime was committed, to serve as a deterrent.

Evarist Bartolo (MLP) said he was concerned that the new law would not cover cases, which also amounted to violence, when one of the partners simply would not speak to his/her spouse or when the breadwinner did not give the other partner the money which the family needed.

And apart from an effective law, Malta also needed to have effective structures to prevent domestic violence and to tackle it when it happened. It was well known that it was very difficult for the victims of domestic violence to express themselves and seek help and he did not think this bill would make it any easier.

The media and education had a major role in bringing about a culture change. The young, in particular, needed to be taught that they should not tolerate domestic violence and not accept to be the victims of violence.

Professional help also played a major role in the elimination of domestic violence. It was essential that the help given to victims of domestic violence was professional. Unfortunately, there were not enough people trained to deal with such situations. Clearly, more resources needed to be addressed to this area.

Concluding, Mr Bartolo said that although the aggressor should be given the necessary help, the main aim of a law to prevent domestic violence had to be the provision of help to the victims.

Earlier in the debate, Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi said Gozo was not free of domestic violence. The problem was being hidden but not cured. The problem was real but many were ignoring the cry of the victims and the situation was becoming difficult and uncontrollable.

Statistics could throw one off track because many simply did not report such violence. People seeking help demanded to remain anonymous and sometimes they did not even meet social workers at their offices to avoid identification.

Several cases of separation in Gozo were, in one way or another, related to domestic violence. Aside from the Carmine Cauchi shelter which housed female victims of domestic violence, there were no other services in Gozo. Gozitans, he said, found it very difficult to seek help in Malta.

Mr Azzopardi said that any effort made to reduce domestic violence should ensure protection of the victim.

He felt the proposed law should offer more security to victims. Legal proceedings should not be longer than necessary and battered wives should also be assisted to find employment to mitigate financial problems.

It was also important to make young people conscious of the problem so that they could avoid it.

Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said that it was true that the bill on domestic violence had taken a very long time to be drafted but it was drafted in the right manner and was going to be beneficial to society.

The law would provide effective remedies to the victims of such violence.

He argued that the problem of domestic violence in Malta was becoming a frequent one and existed in every sector of society.

An important feature of the bill was an amendment in the Civil Code whereby a magistrate in the Civil Court was to be given the same powers as those of a magistrate of the Criminal Court in the context of cases of domestic violence.

He explained how the concept of domestic violence was extended in the bill. The categories of domestic violence were being broadened to include those couples who were not married but who were nonetheless living under the same roof.

Commenting on the necessity or otherwise of the commission established by the bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the commission was necessary and vital to society to focus attention on domestic violence.

An important advantage that the new law would have was that it eliminated the need for a complaint by the injured party to be presented to the police in order for them to proceed.

Another advantage was that when an aggressor was accused, the court has the power to issue the necessary orders against the aggressor so that the victim was given an effective remedy.

He concluded by stressing that domestic violence was completely unacceptable in Maltese society, whatever its form.