New law offers broader protection to assault victims
PROVISIONS of the Domestic Violence Act, which deals with the issuing of protection orders against such violence, have been spelled out by Deputy Justice Minister John Jeffrey.
This as South Africa marks Women’s Month against a backdrop of reports of very high levels of physical and sexual assault across the country.
The 1998 Domestic Violence Act was amended last year with the promulgation of the Domestic Violence Amendment Act, which changed certain definitions and the way in which domestic violence must be dealt with by the courts.
“You can get a protection order from the court ordering the person you’re complaining against, that they can’t do certain things, and if they do those things, they can actually be arrested for breaking the order. Although it’s a piece of paper, it’s effectively got the force of law,” said Jeffrey. He said this was a two-part process. “The complainant or applicant will come to the court and make the allegation against the respondent, and the magistrate will look at the statement and then decide if they meet the requirement and then grant an interim order.
“A date will then be set for when the matter must be heard. That is done without any input from the respondent because this person (complainant) needs protection now, so we can’t wait to hear what the respondent has to say. We grant the order, the respondent can then come back and challenge it at that point,” said Jeffrey.
Jeffrey said the Domestic Violence Act was broad.
“It can be somebody you’re living with, somebody who you’ve had a relationship with. Domestic violence can also happen in family homes where, for example, there’ll be a son or grandson, who’s violently abusing the grandmother, a protection order can be issued against the son.”
He said domestic violence was not just physical assault, but could also involve emotional abuse.
“There’s now a term ‘cohesive behaviour’, which forms part of something you could seek a protection order against, which is compelling or forcing a complainant to abstain from doing anything that they have a lawful right to do,” said Jeffrey.
He added there was also a category of “controlling behaviour”. This was behaviour that isolated the complainant from sources of support, exploited their resources, deprived them of the means needed for independence, resistance or escape, or regulated their everyday lives.