Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLICATIONS OF BONA FIDE PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL NATURE.
BETWEEN
AND
Hearing:
18 June 2008
Appearances: Ms M Baker for Applicant Ms F Emery for Respondent Judgment: 18 June 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE R J RUSSELL [as to disposition of application objecting to direction to attend programme]
Introduction [1] 2005. year. [2] During the course of his term of imprisonment, Mr DSGM attended a DSGM and JJH were in a qualifying domestic relationship since February Mr DSGM was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in December of that
comprehensive course called the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Course at I Prison. [3] On his release from prison in November 2007, the parties attempted to
resume their relationship. Difficulties, however, occurred and as a consequence Ms JJH applied for a without notice Protection Order on 3 March 2008. A temporary Protection Order was made by this Court. Mr DSGM elected not to defend that
order which was made final by operation of law 3 months later. [4] Mr DSGM lodged an objection to the requirement that he attends a Stopping
Violence Programme, saying that because of the programmes he undertook whilst in prison in early 2007, he has already learnt what the Stopping Violence Programme would have taught him. The evidence [5] Mr DSGM, represented by Ms Baker, filed two affidavits dated 27 March
2008 and 28 May 2008 and gave evidence in support of his objection. [6] Ms JJH, who was represented by Ms Emery, filed an affidavit dated 14 May
2008 saying that she did not consider that the requirement to attend a programme should be dispensed with. She cited the incidents of domestic violence which had occurred following Mr DSGMs release from prison. That domestic violence was outlined in her affidavit of 3 March 2008 and her parents affidavit of 3 March 2008 filed in support of her application for a without notice Protection Order. Those
allegations of violence contained in those affidavits, as I have indicated, were sufficient to persuade the Court to make an order on a without notice basis.
[7]
nature and quality of the programmes he undertook in prison and also about the allegations of domestic violence which Ms JJH said had occurred upon his release from prison. In summary Mr DSGM says that the programmes in prison were intensive, covering a number of issues and did relate in part to anger management issues, notwithstanding the programme synopsis that was shown to him and produced as an exhibit. This did not refer to anger management issues. He
considered that he did not need any further help or assistance on stopping violence and anger management issues. [8] In respect of the allegations of domestic violence that occurred following his
release, Mr DSGM did not accept a number of the allegations Ms JJH had made against him. He did, however, acknowledge that texts were sent by him and that some of the texts were not appropriate messages to send. [9] I consider there are two issues for the Court to determine. First, did the
courses undertaken by Mr DSGM in prison teach him appropriate messages about domestic violence and management of his anger, and secondly, has there been domestic violence since his release from prison? In respect of the first issue, I have had particular regard to the medium intensity rehabilitation programme synopsis. It seems that the programmes address such matters as anti-social attitudes, problem thinking and emotions, problem solving difficulties, substance abuse, relationship issues including criminal associates, conflict resolution and maintaining positive lifestyle choices, but do not refer to anger management specifically. [10] The report from the programme provider which Mr DSGM attached to his
affidavit indicated that while he had participated satisfactorily in the course, there was a period when he was unable to attend sessions because of medical difficulties. I also note, however, that the writer of the report said:
Throughout the process of the course Mr DSGMs behaviour has been inconsistent. He has shown great ability to make meaningful contribution and address his own offending, but has also demonstrated a real lack of control of his emotional self, particularly when discussing his report.
[11]
sessions because of ill health gives me some concern. I pointed out to Mr DSGM at the conclusion of the evidence, the Stopping Violence Programme is a group therapy programme which covers some 16 sessions, which is detailed and tailored towards domestic violence and management of anger. I do not see that issue having been specifically addressed in the programme reports that he has undertaken whilst in prison. [12] The second issue to consider is whether there has been domestic violence
since his release from prison. The relevance of this is that if there has, it would tend to show that the course undertaken in prison has not been sufficiently detailed or effective enough to indicate that Mr DSGM has learnt how to deal with issues of domestic violence or management of anger. [13] Mr DSGM acknowledges that upon his release from prison he and Ms JJH
attempted to rekindle their relationship. This did not proceed well. It was for both of them a somewhat tumultuous time. There was shouting, verbal abuse and Ms JJH goes much further and alleges there was physical violence and physical abuse, something which Mr DSGM denies. [14] I am not able to make a specific finding on whether the physical domestic
violence alleged has occurred for I have not heard evidence from Ms JJH today. It certainly has been acknowledged by Mr DSGM, however, that some of the messages, particularly the texts, were not appropriate, and there was verbal shouting and abuse, all of which certainly can constitute psychological abuse within the meaning of the Act. The law [15] The relevant provisions of s36 of the Domestic Violence Act provide:
36 Direction to attend programme made on application without notice
(1) This section applies where the Court makes a direction under section 32 of this Act on an application without notice.
(3) Where the respondent or associated respondent notifies the Court, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, that he or she objects to the direction, and wishes to be heard, the Registrar must assign a hearing date, which must be (a) As soon as practicable; and
(b) Unless there are special circumstances, in no case later than 42 days after the receipt of the notice of objection. (4) Nothing in this section or section 37 of this Act gives the Court power to review any order or decision other than the direction to which the notice relates, but nothing in this section limits section 76 or section 79 of this Act.
[16]
(1) After considering an objection made, pursuant to section 36 of this Act, to a direction, the Court may (a) (b) (c) Confirm the direction; or Confirm the direction but vary the terms of the direction; or Discharge the direction.
Discussion and Outcome [17] I have concluded that I am not satisfied that the programme undertaken by
Mr DSGM in prison is detailed enough to address domestic violence and anger management issues to allow me to uphold his objection to his attendance at the programme. [18] Having heard Mr DSGM give evidence today, I am not satisfied that the
programmes in prison relating to these issues are as detailed as the Stopping Violence Programmes provide and am reinforced in that view by my findings in respect of the domestic violence allegations that have occurred since his release from prison when he and Ms JJH elected to try and continue their relationship. [19] [20] I accordingly dismiss Mr DSGMs objection to the programme. He will be referred to a programme provider in his area and be required to As I have indicated to Mr DSGM, and I want
[21]
I would urge Mr DSGM to take on board the contents of this decision and the
content of the Stopping Violence Programme that he is going to commence as a consequence of this decision. He will, in my view, be better for it at the conclusion of the programme. [22] There will be no order as to costs.