Victim challenges Family Court failings

A senior civil servant who was once strangled unconscious by an ex-partner says the justice system allowed her to be re-victimised by her cashed-up assailant.

Olivia – whose real name cannot be used for legal reasons – says she was traumatised by a Family Court process which cost her $150,000 and enabled her ex-partner to continue his control over her through psychological and financial abuse.

Her story comes as Justice Minister Andrew Little announces a review into the Family Court – the third attempt to fix the troubled system in under a decade.

Little said cases like Olivia’s were motivation to make change. ‘‘I’m sufficiently concerned about what I’m hearing, which is why we will be initiating a review of the Family Court.

‘‘We have a major concern about access to justice generally, and the time taken to get things sorted out is just way too long.’’

Currently, a backlog means even relatively simple cases are not heard for months. In Wellington, lawyers are warning clients not to expect a hearing until December.

‘‘These are families in highly stressful situations, who are being caught up in a bureaucratic system,’’ family lawyer Liz Lewes said.

Olivia, who has since died of cancer, spent the last 14 years of her life in hiding from a man the Family Court deemed no threat. She had no online presence, her address is not publicly available, and her family were worried about her safety in speaking with The Press.

But as the cancer stole over her body, she met with Little and Ministry of Justice officials to argue for the rights of domestic violence survivors and a simpler system.

‘‘As soon as I found out about the cancer, I decided I wanted to do this,’’ she told The Press. ‘‘I mean what’s he going to do, kill me?’’

Olivia was in an physically and psychologically abusive relationship with Paul (not his real name) for eight years. It began with Paul backhanding Olivia across the face, and escalated to punching and strangulation. Olivia tried to leave, but felt trapped and afraid.

After an incident where Paul bit Olivia on the arm until she bled, she filed for a ‘‘without notice’’ protection order.

These are granted under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, if the court is satisfied the applicant has been subject to domestic violence and needs to be protected.

The interim, three-month order was granted. But Olivia says Paul used vexatious litigation to fight the final protection order, and she was dragged back to court for the next two and-a-half years without a hearing date in sight.

She says judges did not take her case seriously, with one telling her she was ‘‘over-emotional’’. She felt punished for not leaving her alleged abuser. ‘‘I couldn’t believe it,’’ she says. ‘‘I’m a lawabiding citizen. I thought the police and the courts were there to protect me, to protect women. Now I know they’re not.

‘‘The worst time of my life was when I was with my abuser, because he could have killed me. But the court process was a close second.’’

Olivia eventually secured a final protection order in late 2006, after her expartner agreed to it through lawyers when Olivia signed an unrelated property deal.

‘‘I didn’t care about the property. I just wanted to be safe,’’ she says.

But four years later, Paul applied to discharge the final protection order. Olivia had no money or energy left to fight.

‘‘I couldn’t do it anymore. I felt horribly judged, I didn’t feel listened to, and the process made me feel isolated and trapped.’’ Instead, she went into hiding.

When asked to comment, Paul maintained the abuse allegations were ‘‘not true or proven.’’

He said the protection order was baseless, and he had applied to discharge the final order as he believed it could be seen to reflect on his character and prevent him from travelling and owning property.

‘‘Just because she wanted it does not make it right – so of course I defended myself.’’

Nationwide, around 650 applications are made for protection orders each month.

Lewes said if a defendant opposed the order, a victim could expect to spend upwards of $5000 to get to a final hearing. In other cases, like Olivia’s, the time and cost was crippling.

‘‘I think it puts some people off making these applications and securing protection – it just adds to their revictimisation.’’

Domestic violence campaigners say victims should not have to pay to keep themselves safe, and that Olivia’s case highlights the ability of white-collar perpetrators to game the system.

‘‘I have known of women in this situation who have been actively suicidal, because it’s just so desperate,’’ said Shine client services manager Jill Proudfoot.

‘‘It is abuse through the legal processes.’’