The domestic violence bill and the BORA II

Last week, I highlighted some problems with the government's Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The bill would allow police officers to respond to domestic violence by issuing alleged offenders with "police orders" exiling them from their homes for up to five days, on suspicion. There is no hearing, no review of the evidence, and no effective ability to challenge the orders; a fairly substantive penalty is imposed simply on a police officer's say-so, and we just have to trust them that its justified. In short, Ahmed Zaoui rules for those accused of (but for whom there is not enough proof to arrest, let alone prosecute or convict for) domestic violence.

While protecting families from domestic violence is an important goal, it does not override basic considerations of justice or fairness, or excuse this sort of draconian policy. I can see how a "cooling off" period is desirable and likely to be effective, and that restricting people's movements is less of an infringement of liberty than the current practice of sticking people in a cell, but there has to be a better way to do it, which respects our fundamental norms of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. And this concern is widely shared. While Deborah's post on the Hand Mirror supports the policy (though with a 72 hour duration rather than the proposed five days), she recognises that they need to be able to be appealed quickly, and that the courts, legal aid and police need to be properly resourced to ensure that the orders work properly and everyone has a fair go (which I think is a laughable proposition under a National government intent on cutting services saving money to fund tax cuts for its rich mates). Meanwhile, over at KiwiPolitico, Anita suggests an alternative framework:

I think that the Police should have the ability to ban the abuser immediately from the house for five days. The first day that courts are open the Police should then go before the court and have the order reconfirmed with everyone involved able to be heard. The court can then either confirm the order, reject the order or, potentially, issue a normal protection order. The order itself should be subject to the normal review process.

That way victims of domestic violence are protected, abusers are not unnecessarily arrested, and the standard judicial processes and reviews are available to all involved.

This seems to me to be a far better way of doing things. It ensures that the evidence is tested. It ensures that unjustified orders can be speedily overturned. And it ensures that the penalty is imposed by the courts, not a police officer acting as judge, jury and executioner in the middle of the night. I'll likely push for this sort of framework in my submission to the select committee.

In the meantime, I'm left wondering: if its so easy to come up with a framework which protects the rights of everyone involved, why couldn't the government do it?