No requirement for actual evidence in barring orders
In actual fact, under the Domestic Violence legislation there is no requirement to produce any evidence. Cases are decided on the "balance of probabilities". Barring orders can be, and most are, granted on the basis of uncorroborated allegations, with no evidence required. Also, the granting of an interim barring order can prejudice the subsequent hearing against the accused.
In June, 1999, both the Law Society and Amen made comprehensive submissions to the then Minster for Justice, pointing out a number of flaws in this legislation, including that identified by the Supreme Court in its recent judgement. Now, over three years later, the position of both organisations has been vindicated.
The Law Society's report also referred to "a total absence of guidelines as to the standards of proofs necessary to establish abuse". This issue was also dealt with in Amen's submission. There are many other serious flaws in the Domestic Violence Act, 1996 apart from that identified in the Supreme Court judgment. While these other flaws may or may not be technically contrary to the Constitution, they must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Failure to do so, following the Supreme Court decision, would amount to negligence.
One of the reasons all family legislation is so defective and unbalanced is that it is shaped and influenced in a totally undemocratic manner. Family law is essentially about reconciling the competing interests of men and women. Men and men's organisations have to date been totally denied the opportunity to articulate men's experiences and interests in the formulation of legislation and policy.
If the system is to be based on the values of democracy, equality and justice then organisations representing men and women should be treated equally and accorded parity of esteem. This basic principle of justice, equality and democracy may not appeal to the feminist sympathisers such as Mr O'Keeffe.
Mary T Cleary,
Amen,
9/10, Academy Street,
Navan,
Co Meath.
