Stemming the violence

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/12/2015 (3736 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Selinger government has introduced legislation to make it easier for victims of domestic violence to obtain protection orders and to require the subjects of such orders to surrender firearms they may possess.

The measures come in the wake of two high-profile deaths in the province this fall.

Manitoba has the second-highest rate of spousal homicide in Canada, next to Saskatchewan, Attorney General Gord Mackintosh said Monday in announcing several administrative and proposed legislative changes.

“We have to do better,” he said. “We have to end this terror.”

Mackintosh said amendments he introduced in the legislature to the Domestic Violence and Stalking Act will set a less onerous standard for obtaining protection orders.

Currently, the orders are granted if the victim requires imminent and immediate protection. With the proclamation of Bill 11, judicial justices of the peace would have to consider specific factors related to the risk of domestic violence or stalking when considering a protection order — a threshold more in line with what is required in other provinces, Mackintosh said.

If a protection order is granted and the justice of the peace is satisfied the person against whom the order is made possesses firearms, they will be required to surrender them as well as any ammunition.

The amended law would also require the immediate referral of every protection order to federal officials, who would flag existing firearms licences and begin an investigation that would potentially revoke those licences.

Over the last two years, more than 1,200 protection orders have been granted in Manitoba, but another 1,700 have been dismissed.

Mackintosh said the success rate is too low.

‘We have to open wider the doors of justice, particularly for those women and children living in fear’

— Attorney General Gord Mackintosh

The minister cited two specific Manitoba cases in unveiling his proposed changes — the Oct. 8 beating death of Selena Keeper, 20, who was denied a protection order against her ex-boyfriend despite his violent history, and the Oct. 30 shooting death of Camille Runke, 49, whose estranged husband is believed to have killed her before fatally shooting himself days later when police tried to pull him over. Runke was granted a protection order against Kevin Runke in July and specified on her application he had access to a rifle, but the court did not impose a firearms restriction.

Mackintosh said the province would also streamline court application forms to make them easier to understand and increase supports to those applying for protection orders. There will be better training for protection order designates (PODs) who assist applicants, there will be more such PODs, and they will be allowed to participate in hearings.

Mackintosh said he also wants to explore enhanced use of monitoring bracelets incorporating GPS technology that could alert victims of the offender’s location. A “GPS monitoring expansion team” that includes Winnipeg police Chief Devon Clunis and University of Manitoba law professor Karen Busby are to report back to the minister by spring.

But defence lawyer Scott Newman, a spokesman for the Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of Manitoba, said there are legal concerns around some of the province’s proposals, including mandatory firearm bans and GPS tracking, which he said is also very expensive. These kinds of measures are typically put in place after someone has been convicted of a crime, not before.

“Certainly there is no real restriction on liberty to say that a person has to stay away from another person — but as soon as the government starts ordering someone to turn in their firearms, or certainly by the time you’re getting into GPS proposals, you’re talking about a serious impairment of a person’s liberty. I think there would be severe constitutional questions as to whether or not such proposals are valid,” Newman said in an email.

“Those concerns are exacerbated when the order is made in the absence of the person, without an opportunity to respond to allegations being made against them — before you put a tracking collar on someone, you have to give them a right to appear in court and explain why it should not be granted.”

Instead of strengthening protection orders — which are ineffective if someone is intent on attacking their victims — the province could give victims more tools to protect themselves, he said.

“At the end of the day, it seems to me the government needs to focus more on the victim side of the equation — what steps can the government take to ensure that victims are safe, whether it is a policy that the police have to respond to 911 calls within a certain time, to giving silent panic button alarms to victims — that seems to me it would be more likely to produce a positive outcome in a high stress domestic situation, rather than what is being proposed, which is seemingly expensive, inefficient and ineffective,” Newman wrote.

 

— with file from Katie May

larry.kusch@freepress.mb.ca