How can closure be brought more quickly in family violence related cases instead of them dragging along in the court system?
Are there measures in place to stop people using the appeal process at tax-payer cost as a delaying tactic?
First, to give a brief outline of the Family Violence Court, some years ago real concerns were expressed concerning the way courts dealt issues of family violence.
A family violence prevention committee was formed to set up a more efficient way for courts to deal with these matters.
As a consequence of that, the late Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson decided he wanted to pioneer what is now called the Family Violence Courts.
Six courts were set up in New Zealand, designed to pioneer a different approach towards dealing with family violence.
Those courts have now been in operation for some years and over that time there has been a refinement of the process of dealing with family violence.
There are guidelines operating in the Family Violence Courts as to the length of time cases should take to get through and be completed.
The New Zealand justice system operates under the presumption that everyone accused of an offence is innocent until proven guilty.
If someone charged with a family violence offence pleads not guilty, that case will go off to a defended hearing and the matter will be determined by a Judge, or Judge and jury, and that can take longer than the guidelines set for disposition.
Ordinarily, when people plead guilty cases can be dealt with in the timeframe of around 13 weeks from coming into court and being determined.
Progress monitored
Cases often go for longer because the Family Violence court wants to monitor the progress of an offender through violence or drug and alcohol programmes.
The court will hold them accountable through monitoring court sessions where the offender will come back and be seen by a Judge, and some determination is made as to the progress being made at programmes which are provided and paid for by the State.
Offenders undertake programmes based on what their needs are assessed and requiring.
It is common for family violence offenders to have drug and alcohol problems of significance, violence problems are often inter-related, and often there are mental health issues. A whole overview of different needs have to be addressed.
There is an incentive for the offender to attend the programmes.
Ultimately the sentence imposed by the court will recognise what they have done and will be factored in, so an offender may get what seems a lesser sentence as a result of doing that work.
However it is not an easy “out” for offenders to undertake programmes, some of which are 26 weeks long for two hours per week, so they are locked in for lengthy time.
The hope is that by the time the programme is completed they will have learned some lessons, learned to deal with anger, and no longer express violence as they did previously.
Everyone in New Zealand is entitled to appeal a decision of the court and that right is an important part of the process.
If an offender feels a Judge has got it wrong they can appeal to the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court in certain circumstances.
That process takes time, but the judiciary is not aware of offenders who appeal in order to drag it out.
There are risks for offenders in that the appeal court might increase the sentence.
Most appeal because they think they have a right, as a result of having been treated in a way they don’t consider is appropriate.
Family Violence Courts are in the process of being reviewed as to their success.
From a judicial point of view, these courts are being pioneered in New Zealand, and they are successful, but what the courts do can always be refined and done better.
The following Ministry of Justice website on Family Violence courts might be helpful:
www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/f/family-violence-courts
The above is the response given by the judges of the Auckland District Court at their ‘Community Day’ held at Fickling Convention Centre on September 24, 2012. The Editor of this newspaper was present at the meeting and the responses of the judges to a number of questions will be published over several ensuing editions. The responses are reproduced verbatim, as given by the judges.
