Make the protection order work for victims

Guyana has been besieged by a high level of domestic violence within families for some time now, and analysts might argue that domestic violence has long since assumed crisis proportions. And in grappling with the problem and seeking to provide relief for sufferers, mainly women, some first-world legal remedies have been pursued by authorities here, particularly (but not limited to) the initiation of the granting of a “protection order,” or “restraining order” as it is more commonly known, intended to prevent the aggressor-spouse from reaching the physical proximity to the victim necessary for conflict to erupt or harm to be caused.

It was this type of protective order that was in the process of being served when a 39-year-old farmer launched a vicious attack on his reputed wife chopping her about the body, including her head, face, neck and hands. The fact that this attack occurred in the presence of a female rural constable is cause for alarm and speaks to the apparent disregard for authority by the abuser, or perhaps demonstrating a kind of “death wish” mentality and being blind to the consequences, which has been a characteristic of many perpetrators of serious physical violence.

But what is even more disturbing is the most remarkable contradiction wherein a victim of abuse was brought within proximity of the abuser by authorities, without any effective controls or protection, essentially to tell the abuser not to be in proximity to the victim. In this we see highlighted a serious disconnect between the law and its implementation and lack of consideration for the process and what the process means to both the abuser and the victim. It seems much more rational for the service of the protection order to be done by a person other than the person requesting protection, yet this consideration was entirely missed in this instance.

The idea that a piece of paper can provide effective protection to one person from another is flawed, and indicative of the lack of a full grasp of what the law intends by those responsible for implementing the law. In a country where the principle of a “restraining or protective order” is an unfamiliar one to many, it is illogical for us to believe that the mere service of the document guarantees any level of security to the victim or is an effective deterrent to the abuser.

Indeed, the deterrence factor only operates in the fear of the consequences of the breach of the order. Since there is a scarce awareness of the existence of the order, then there must likewise be scant public knowledge of the consequences of the breach of such an order – and we consider here a breach occurring even without attendant physical or other violence to still constitute a breach.

It is not at all unusual in Guyana to have laws passed without the enabling environment to make for the effective implementation of those laws. The enabling environment for the issuing and serving of protective/restraining orders would include specific training of the relevant state agencies and police departments in the application, processing and issuing of these orders. The corollary of the issuing of the protection order is that the protection should be immediately available when the order is breached, and the police departments are programmed to act with a sense of urgency in restraining the perpetrator.

To have a restraining order issued to an alleged abuser but not have the capability to respond quickly and effectively to a reported breach of the order is to make the service of the order no more than an incitement to violence by the abuser towards the victim. The specific incident mentioned earlier occurred on Sunday February 24, and at the time of publishing the story the police had not yet located the culprit who violently attacked his reputed wife in the presence of the female rural constable. The Guyana Police Force (GPF) must recognise that a tragic precedent has been set here during the service of a protective order in which the person appealing for protection was savagely wounded during the badly executed process of serving the order. It behoves the GPF to spare no effort to quickly apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrator of this heinous crime.

A lack of conceptual awareness of the purpose of the protection order is a challenge that the authorities must seek to overcome with some dispatch. That piece of paper intends to present to the person it is served upon the realisation that there exists a state apparatus which is prepared to act swiftly in the defence of the applicant/victim and to punish the abuser/perpetrator to the full extent of the law. This fact should be carefully explained as a warning to the person on whom the protective order is being served, and the police departments across the country should be trained in all the legal aspects of the protective orders, including the distinction between temporary and more long-term protective orders.

Obviously, properly executed public service announcements should be done across all media platforms to educate the public on the types of protection orders that exist, the process for applying for those, and the penalties for breaching protection orders. It should be made clear the types of actions by the abuser (and by the victim) that constitute a breach of the order. Heightening the public’s awareness of the rights and remedies surrounding the issue of the protective/restraining order is an urgent necessity to be pursued by those in authority.

The further training and sensitization of police and other state agencies as to their obligation to support the service of the document with a practical and effective response capability aimed at the protection of the applicant and restraint of the abuser is critical to achieving the purpose of the protection order.