Editorial Tuesday July 22, 2014

Peter Jackson, Editor, The Northland Age

THE introduction of protection orders as a means of protecting women and children, mainly, from the threat of violence at the hands of men, mainly, was touted as a major advance in reducing domestic violence. Police were later given the ability to issue short-term orders on the spot, a power that, it would be fair to say, has proved effective in defusing tense situations that could otherwise have led to serious violence.

At the end of the day though, a protection order is just a piece of paper. It will not deter a man who is intent on inflicting physical or emotional harm, and in the worst of cases it will not prevent a tragedy.

Okaihau woman Karen Edwards has learned that the hard way. Her then 21-year-old daughter Ashlee died in Whangarei two years ago. The man who allegedly took her life was her estranged partner, although that has yet to be proved in court. Karen Edwards, however, has no doubt that had the protection order granted to her daughter worked as intended she would still be alive. And now she is leading a call for Parliament to institute a 'three strikes' system to give protection orders the teeth she says they lack.

She wants the first breach to be dealt with by way of a warning and confiscation of the offender's cell phones/computers; a second in three years to attract a second warning, a $5000 fine to be paid to the victim or six months' imprisonment; a third offence in three years a minimum of three years' imprisonment.

Currently the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment, but that is rarely, if ever, imposed. In fact very, very few of the thousands who breach protection orders every year are likely to ever see the inside of a prison cell.

The problem for the police and courts is that protection orders do little to deter some men, and that long jail terms en masse would not be practical, or socially acceptable. Breaches do not always involve or suggest potential for serious violence.

Perhaps those who deal with these offenders, principally the police, could be expected to identify, with some accuracy, the small minority who have the potential to inflict serious harm, or kill. But then there is the matter of persuading the court to recognise that potential. And are we ready to start locking people up not because of what they have done but what they might do?

The writer doesn't know if the tragedy that befell Ashlee Edwards should have been predictable. What is known is that two breaches, which she reported to the police two months before she died, related to text and voice messages. It is also known that the police let her down.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that officers in Whangarei, Kerikeri and Kawakawa bungled their response, basically as a result of failing to communicate. The last officer involved gave the alleged offender a warning, unaware of what had gone on before or that this was the second complaint in quick succession.

Even if that information had been available it might not have been apparent that this woman's life was in danger. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the fact is that Ashlee Edwards, the mother of two little girls, died because 'the system' failed to protect her.

She wasn't the first and won't be the last, although her mother's call for a three-strike system may offer better protection to potential victims in the future. At the end of the day though a protection order is just a piece of paper, as effective at protecting the vulnerable as a strip of paint on a highway is at protecting the occupants of a car from a drunk driver.

Protection orders, like road markings, mean nothing unless they are recognised for what they are and are obeyed. Mrs Edwards' proposal might well keep some potentially violent men in check, but that is unlikely. Any man who leaves the holder of a protection order unmolested because of the consequences of breaching the order probably doesn't need an order in the first place. It is the violent brute, the man who refuses to recognise that a relationship has ended and has no compunction about inflicting harm to maintain it, who is most likely to add to the grim statistics that are beginning to accrue. Therein lies the problem.

A man who will wreak physical or emotional revenge on a woman who spurned him is unlikely to ponder the likely consequences. The fact that he could be jailed for three years won't deter him. Nor will the prospect of a three-strike system. And while the call for a $5000 payment to the victim has appeal, anyone who has faith in that as a deterrent has never sat in a court and heard the derisory offers that are routinely made for reparation, or the explanations as to why reparation cannot be made at all. The sum of $5000 will be totally beyond the ability or willingness of many offenders to pay.

If the law offers an answer it must be to jail those who breach protection orders and who represent a genuine threat to the physical or emotional well-being of the victim. It deserves a greater maximum than three years...

, although in the event of harm being done to the victim, other charges with greater penalties will also be laid. The challenge is to identify those who simply try to maintain a relationship long after they have worn out their welcome and those who have the potential to inflict real harm.

Mrs Edwards, to her credit, also wants to see much more done to 'educate' those who breach protection orders, but that is unlikely to be effective.

These are grown men we are talking about, men with all sorts of issues, from alcoholism and drug addiction to a propensity for violence, a severe lack of empathy for others, a degree of self-centredness that most of us grow out of before we go to school. Teaching them that they do not own their partners, that they do not have the right to treat them as chattels, that there can never be any excuse for offering violence to another person, particularly a woman or child, will be a tall order.

Long-term the trick will be to prevent boys from growing into this kind of man, but how do we do that? We live in a country where we can't even teach a sizeable proportion of children how to read and write. It might be more realistic to educate our daughters, to teach them to take much greater care about the men they let into their lives in the first place. To offer them the support only a family can give to instil in them the self-esteem so many seem to lack, and, if the worst comes to the worst, to offer them the physical and emotional protection they will need when a relationship goes so badly wrong that they might be in danger. In short, many women in this country need to be empowered to take control of their own lives.

The sad fact is that there is nothing that politicians, the police or courts can do to protect anyone against a person who is intent on doing them harm. It is up to each of us to protect our loved ones. Relying on a piece of paper will always be a gamble, a gamble that some will inevitably lose.