memorandum to the special select committee on penal code

Comments
Domestic violence should be deemed a seizable offence so that victims do not need
<strong>to</strong> wait for a Public Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> issue an Order <strong>to</strong> Investigate before <strong>the</strong>y can file
for an Interim Protection Order or a Protection Order and so that <strong>the</strong> police can
commence investigation without an order <strong>to</strong> investigate from <strong>the</strong> Public Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r.
Section 108 of <strong>the</strong> CPC should be amended <strong>to</strong> allow domestic violence cases <strong>to</strong>
proceed immediately without waiting for an Order <strong>to</strong> Investigate (OTI) from <strong>the</strong>
Public Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r, so that Interim Protection Orders (IPOs) and Protection Orders
(POs) can be obtained as quickly as possible. Under <strong>the</strong> current Act, many of <strong>the</strong>
domestic violence cases are considered non-seizable offences, thus require an OTI
issued by a Deputy Public Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> commence <strong>the</strong> investigation. This thwarts
<strong>the</strong> aim of protecting victims of domestic violence because <strong>the</strong> process for obtaining
an IPO can be and often is significantly delayed.
3. Proposed Amendments <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Domestic Violence Act
(a)
Section 4 - Interim Protection Order &
Section 5 - Protection Order
Existing Provision
Application procedures for Interim Protection Order or Protection Order
Recommendation
Simplify and stipulate clearly procedures for applications and issuance of Interim
Protection Orders (IPOs) and Protection Orders (POs).
Comments
The procedures for applying for and issuing IPOs and POs should be simplified, and
ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> DVA or its related regulations should carefully enumerate <strong>the</strong>se simplified
procedures. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, <strong>the</strong> relevant players – police officers, welfare officers, and
<strong>the</strong> courts have no choice but <strong>to</strong> establish <strong>the</strong>ir own individual procedures that vary
from court <strong>to</strong> court and district <strong>to</strong> district. For example, some magistrates require <strong>the</strong>
victim <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> court every 2 months for <strong>the</strong> magistrates <strong>to</strong> review <strong>the</strong> case as
<strong>the</strong>re is presently no requirement for <strong>the</strong> police <strong>to</strong> inform <strong>the</strong> courts of <strong>the</strong> status of
investigations.
Fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> DVA does not provide a timeline regarding when IPOs or POs must be
applied for by enforcement offices, so victims are left vulnerable until police
officers, welfare officers or magistrates decide <strong>to</strong> take up <strong>the</strong> application.
The requirement that investigations must be ongoing in order for <strong>the</strong> victim <strong>to</strong> apply
for IPOs combined with <strong>the</strong> CPC requirement that non-seizable offences require an
Order <strong>to</strong> Investigate (OTI) from <strong>the</strong> public prosecu<strong>to</strong>r means that many victims have
22