ALAN McGIVERGAN,
Madam, - Women's Aid (The Irish Times, November 25th) called for the reintroduction of the ex-parte interim barring order, which has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Their suggestion is to introduce a maximum time limit between the date of issue and the full court hearing.
They argue that this would ensure the constitutionality of the Act. This would still not justify evicting a person from his/her home at a hearing at which he/she was not present and did not know that such proceedings were in progress.
At the time of the Supreme Court's decision Women's Aid predicted that the lives of women and children would be lost due to the court's decision, and more than six weeks after their hysterical rantings, their claims failed to materialise.
Moreover, Women's Aid have confirmed that since the ruling they are unable to determine if more women have sought refuge, despite their comprehensive helpline and backup services, which seemed in the past to provide all other sorts of stastical information.
According to Women's Aid figures (The Irish Times, October 10th, 20 per cent of interim barring orders were turned into full barring orders, thus leaving 80 per cent of barring orders applications fictitious.
They also claimed that the interim barring order was an effective tool for those at serious risk, but it was also an effective tool for women to circumvent the judicial separation procedures and remove immediately a man from his home and children, as happened in many cases.
In reality, Women's Aid has not been able to prove that the abolition of the interim barring order has had any adverse effect on women and children. It has, however, removed a serious injustice inflicted on many innocent men and children. - Yours, etc..
ALAN McGIVERGAN, Fairways, Donabate, Co.Dublin.