Women's Aid seeks action on barring orders

Women's Aid has called for a speedy resolution of the "limbo" created by last month's Supreme Court ruling on barring orders, which it says is putting domestic violence victims at renewed risk of abuse.

The organisation has called for the Domestic Violence Act to be amended as a matter of urgency to allow the courts reissue interim barring orders, with a maximum time limit, against violent or abusive spouses.

A demonstration on the issue is due to take place outside the Dáil today to coincide with International Day Opposing Violence Against Women.

Speaking ahead of the event, Women's Aid director Ms Denise Charlton said it was more than six weeks since the court ruled that interim barring orders issued on an ex parte basis, without time limits, were unconstitutional.

Such orders were "an effective method of protecting those at most serious risk," she said.

"It is vital that the Government act urgently to ensure the safety of those most at risk. The introduction of a maximum time limit would ensure women's safety while ensuring the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence Act."

A spokeswoman for Women's Aid said it was unable to say whether more women were seeking places in refuges since the ruling.

However, she said, the ruling had created "a lot of confusion and worry" about what protections were available to people who were being abused.

Since the ruling, the judiciary only has the power to grant a protection order, which allows a perpetrator of abuse to remain in the home, or to set a date for a barring order hearing.

Such hearings currently entailed a delay usually of six to eight weeks but sometimes as much as 10-12 weeks, said Ms Charlton.

"This means that a woman can wait between two to three months before a violent partner can be barred from the home."

She said the only alternative to going to the courts was seeking a place in a refuge.

However, these were greatly oversubscribed.

According to an Eastern Regional Health Authority report for 1999, two out of three women who sought refuge accommodation in that region were refused.

Ms Charlton said: "Judges' hands are tied now.

"The interim barring order was designed to meet a need where there is significant risk of harm to the applicant and any dependants. Since the Supreme Court ruling there are still cases where there is significant harm, but no longer any legal method of providing the required level of protection."