JFJ calls for deferral of Domestic Violence bill
Published:Tuesday | December 19, 2023 | 12:11 AM
Human rights lobby group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) is urging Olivia Grange, minister of gender, to postpone passage of the Domestic Violence bill today and establish a joint select committee by the latest mid-January 2024 to review the legislation expeditiously.
Executive Director of JFJ, Mickel Jackson, says there are gaps in the six-page bill that was tabled last week. In this regard, the JFJ head is insisting that the gaps be plugged before the bill is debated and passed.
Grange started debate on the bill last week and following her presentation, Opposition leader Mark Golding said the bill did not go far enough to address a myriad of concerns raised by a joint select committee that reviewed the law in 2018.
Parliament is expected to continue debate on the bill today, at which time more lawmakers are expected to participate.
Jackson told The Gleaner that JFJ has written to Grange formally requesting that a joint select committee, which she had promised to establish in her remarks on December 5, should be named in January and sittings commence no later than February 1, 2024.
Considering that the bill was not controversial, with a plethora of submissions already made by civil society organisations and the legal fraternity to amend the parent law, Jackson said that review by the joint select committee and subsequent passage should not extend too far beyond April.
Highlighting existing weaknesses in the bill, Jackson said there is no definition of domestic violence in the legislation. She explained that this was a major gap that would affect how practitioners can identify what behaviours are domestic violence and provide an appropriate response.
Jackson said that while JFJ welcomed the proposed increase in penalties for breaches of protection order, the current sanctions did not apply to occupation orders. Further, JFJ believes the penalties should be more punitive than the $1-million fine and one-year imprisonment.
Instead, JFJ said it should increase to $5 million and five years’ imprisonment to reflect the Trinidadian legislation.
Jackson said that JFJ was disappointed that a mandatory police response to the breach of orders was not included.
“One of the major issues that affect the strength of orders is enforcement and instituting that mandatory response provision would provide accountability for officers intended to enforce the orders,” Jackson added.
The human rights lobby group has also raised concern that in Section 4 ‘molesting a prescribed person’ has been replaced with ‘harassing a prescribed person’.
The JFJ is of the view that this adjustment weakens the bill as in the principal act activities that constitute molesting a person are clearly defined while harassment is not defined in either the amendment or parent law.