The state has been ordered to pay €30,000 to a domestic violence victim after the constitutional court ruled that the police failed to protect her from an abusive ex-partner.

The woman and her children spent years living in fear of an ex-partner who repeatedly threatened, abused and stalked her and despite regular police reports, he remained free to torment her. 

As a last resort, the victim filed a case against the State Attorney and Police Commissioner for failing to protect her, to which the state argued that she “made her own bed” by continuing a relationship with an abusive man.

Judge Anna Felice ordered the state to pay her €30,000 in compensation while acknowledging that the only compensation for victims of domestic violence is a strong legal framework that protects them. 

A report to the police in May 2019 led to the issuing of a restraining order in July 2019 but according to Newsbook, the man’s behaviour remained the same, forcing the victim to file multiple police reports in the following months.

The woman’s lawyer asked the police for updates with each report that was filed, but this proved somewhat fruitless because just prior to the initiation of court proceedings in May 2020, the woman was informed that the accused did not show up despite being summoned by the police who then informed her that they were unable to locate him.

This meant that for the next few months, the victim and her children continued to live in a state of fear and anxiety to the detriment of their mental and physical health. The woman also sought therapy due to the distress resulting from the ordeal.

Subsequently, she sought remedy from the state by opening a case against the State Advocate and the Police Commissioner, arguing that they violated her fundamental rights by failing their obligations to assure her safety.

She claimed that the lack of protection and law enforcement constituted inhuman and degrading treatment which had a severe impact on the wellbeing of herself and her children.

The police further arrested the alleged abuser on the same day that they were notified of the court case. The man was charged with causing fear of the use of violence, making threats, and violating probation. A restraining order was also issued.

Nonetheless, the woman was made to file another report in May 2022 over threats made by her ex after she denied him access to their daughter.

However, the police did not take her report seriously, she testified. On one occasion, they even insisted that she pay him a visit in hospital and babysit his child from another relationship.

To counter, the state’s defense argued that she made her own bed by continuing a relationship with the man despite his violent behaviour, ending up pregnant on three occasions.

Namely, they claimed, when the man forced her to abort her first pregnancy.

The Judge quickly shut down this defense, stating that the psychological aspect of an abusive relationship was not the remit of the court. She continued to say that even if the victim ended the relationship earlier, the reaction of the abusive partner could not be predicted. 

What was of concern was whether or not the authorities were effective in responding to domestic violence, to which she found they were not.

In one of the cases, the victim was locked in her home by the aggressor and she called the police to report what was going on. Instead of assurance of help, the police insisted that she needed to go to the station to file a report, TVM claimed.

It was argued that the police could not go to the woman’s house because there had been a fatal accident, this, the Judge said, shows the lack of police priority on domestic violence cases.

The man was arrested seven days after her report.

Similarly, the judge observed that various other reports filed by the woman before she went to court received no response – this includes her May 2022 report. 

The judge explained that this shows that the victim’s complaints are justified because this failure by authorities gave the aggressor a “sense of impunity” which encouraged him to maintain his actions.

Upon giving her ruling, the Judge highlighted the lack of a centralised system which makes it difficult for police officers to clock repeated incidents through multiple reports. In fact, every report made by the woman was treated in isolation.

The judge ultimately found that the authorities breached the woman’s right to protection from inhuman treatment, as established in the Constitution of Malta and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Do you think that the police needs a centralised system for protection orders?