Violent men can stay home

GARDAÍ will no longer arrest violent spouses for breaking current interim barring orders meant to prevent further family violence, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling Wednesday.

The as-yet unpublished court ruling has sparked a war of words between men’s support groups and agencies for battered women.

It has also led to calls for the Government to immediately introduce legislative amendments to allow at-risk spouses to take out emergency barring orders without having to inform potentially violent partners. The Court ruled such interim barring orders were unconstitutional. It said the person against whom the order is made is deprived of the right to be heard. The Court also said the lack of time limits on barring orders was inexplicable.

Women’s groups spent yesterday in consultation with legal experts. One possible response to the court ruling is for Government to introduce an amendment to the flawed 1996 Domestic Violence Act, whereby a hearing in which both parties have their say must take place within seven days of an interim order being issued.

But it can take months for a full hearing to take place granting a full barring order.

Now, in the absence of temporary orders, women will have to inform potentially violent partners of pending court dates. In the meantime the victims will have to remain under the same roofs as their violent spouses.

A statement issued by Garda headquarters last night said: "As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the Garda will not enforce breaches of existing interim barring orders.

“This does not preclude individuals who feel threatened or harassed from contacting gardaí, who have many powers under the non-fatal offences against the person act to deal effectively with breaches of the law.”

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has warned against “an overly negative view” on the ruling.

“I see nothing in this judgment to prevent us from enacting a new provision which is both fair and effective in respect to all parties and which will be consistent with the terms of the judgment,” Mr McDowell said.

As a result of the court ruling, women’s groups have received dozens of calls from worried spouses. There is evidence a number of previously-barred partners have already attempted to move back into homes. Garda sources said staff have fielded calls from worried women but there were no reports of serious incidents.

Sharon O’Halloran, director of the National Network of Women’s Refuges, said: “There is still confusion over the judgment, as it has not yet been published in full and even legal experts are not in a position to give comprehensive advice. But she warned there will be a sharp rise in the number of women ending up homeless if the loophole is not plugged.

Mary Cleary, of the men’s support group Amen, described the legislation as “draconian”. She claims there had been widespread abuse of interim barring orders and that many of the estimated 1,000 issued last year unfairly discriminated against men. She said her organisation was planning a public meeting for spouses who believe they are unfairly barred from their homes.

The latest confirmed figures, from 2000, reveal there were 647 temporary orders granted. Only 43 barring orders were refused at a full hearing while 53 were withdrawn.

The Supreme Court judgment does not affect barring orders issued following a full hearing. Interim order are granted where “there is an immediate risk of significant harm”.