Mick Clifford: Where’s the zero tolerance minister?
One woman who had accessed the family law courts in Co. Kerry has alleged that the since-retired Judge James O'Connor (pictured) rang her and texted her on a few occasions to meet up. Photo: Domnick Walsh
On Thursday last the Minister for Justice Helen McEntee was on the radio, talking about “zero tolerance” for gender-based violence.
“I have committed to doing everything in my power to support the criminal justice system, to support victims in coming forward,” she told Claire Byrne on RTE 1. “This is about a societal change, it’s about men standing up, it’s about women standing up and saying we won’t tolerate this anymore.”
There is no doubting the minister’s sincerity. How that translates into political will, an entity that requires sustained energy and drive, remains to be seen. What is obvious is that there are many facets of the criminal justice system that makes it a cold house for women who find themselves either under threat or the victims of violence.
One area in this respect that has generated little attention is the family law courts. Last year, for instance, three separate women who had accessed the family law courts in Co. Kerry alleged that the judge before whom they had each appeared made inappropriate advances towards them outside the court.
Ms A, as she was referenced to in this paper, told the that she applied to the court in 2016 for a barring order against her husband who had assaulted her. In court, she claims, Judge James O’Connor – since retired - asked for her phone number and that of her husband. Later, Ms A claims, the judge rang her and texted her on a few occasions to meet up. She met him and claims that she “believed his body language clearly indicated that he was pursuing an inappropriate romantic relationship.”
Ms A was on medication because of her marriage break-up and the violence to which she had been subjected. She also claims that when she told gardaí about the issue, one responded that it was a “boy meets girl” thing. The garda denies saying this.
Two other women who had accessed family law courts before Mr O’Connor made similar claims. Mr O’ Connor has not commented on the allegations. But a State that purports to harbour a zero-tolerance policy towards violence against women would surely attempt to find out whether any woman who sought protection from the courts was then exploited in her vulnerability.
People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy raised this issue in the Dáil on a number of occasions last year but got nowhere. The final time he did so was on December 8 last when he addressed the Taoiseach.
“When I raised this with the Taoiseach on 29 September he said, ‘I am very concerned about it and about what I have read today in the articles the deputy mentioned. I will give further consideration to this and revert to the deputy’. It is now two-and-a-half months on and I wonder if the Taoiseach has any information to revert with?”
He didn’t. “I said I would reflect on it,” Mr Martin replied. “I am not clear where we can take it given the fact that the Garda and GSOC were involved. It is not for me to comment.”
Such an outcome leaves the issue hanging there, unresolved, tolerated. Mr O’Connor has no official forum on which to address these allegations and Ms A has nowhere to show how she felt badly let down by the State when fleeing a violent marriage.
Where sits this with a determination to have zero tolerance towards gender-based violence?
An argument could be made that the current design and operation of the family law courts in this country tolerates domestic violence. The in-camera rule is in place for good reason but its universal application is questionable. If a woman – and it is nearly exclusively women – seeks a protection or barring order from a partner, the case is held behind closed doors.
An assault, or more likely a pattern of assaults, is often alleged and its veracity often accepted by the court. Yet this acceptance that sometimes multiple assaults have occurred does not lead to an automatic garda investigation. The details of any barring order are not released to the gardaí.
The prima facia evidence that a crime has been committed remains behind the closed door of the family law court. Furthermore, evidence heard in-camera cannot be used in any connected criminal case.
“Somebody can display very obstructive behaviour in the family law courts and appear all sweetness and lights if a criminal court follows,” according to Noeline Blackwell, CEO of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. “The family law court operates in its own silo and the criminal and childcare courts operate in their own silo.
"The Department of Justice and the National Women’s Council is researching this at the moment.”
Then there is the role of the gardaí in policing domestic violence. There has long been a problem in the recording of incidents to which gardai are called.
A woman might be in an obviously injured or distressed state, but unless she is willing to make a statement the details often go unrecorded on the Pulse system. The failure to plant what would be a red flag can allow violent situations to persist, sometimes leading to a fatality.
Since the onset of the pandemic, and the increase in assaults in the home, the gardaí have upped their game. Operation Faoiseamh, initiated in April 2020, has effectively been involved in fixing the culture of a slipshod approach to domestic violence which informed much of the force’s attitude down through the years.
Protective Service Units have now been established in every garda division and on paper a whole new focus is being given to the issue. However, as noted in recent garda conferences, there remains a serious deficiency in proper training for members in this area.
The problems around members of the force against whom barring orders are issued also requires addressing. Members in that situation are obliged to inform management, but whether they do so is unclear. According to the Garda press office, 24 cases have been reported to internal affairs in which a serving member “is a respondent for an order issued under the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”
There have been no cases of disciplinary action taken against a member who failed to inform management. Certainly in the past, any member who is the subject of a barring order simply continued as he had before, which could involve being called out to domestic violence incidents, or even still having access to firearms.
These are the kind of issues that require addressing with policy and resources, and vigilance thereafter if a zero-tolerance approach is to be implemented. Let’s see if the sustained political will is there to see it through.
- If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please click here for a list of support services.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
