United Kingdom (2007), England and Wales Court of Appeal

United Kingdom (2007), England and Wales Court of Appeal

Patel v. Patel
[2007] EWCA Civ 384

The appellant argued that the sentence he received for violating his committal order was excessively harsh, and sought to reduce the penalty. However, the judge rejected this argument on the grounds that the cumulative effect of the appellant’s violent behaviour against his wife and children warranted the punishment.

“The case is one in which the history was manifestly serious and relevant. The husband's denial of the breaches and total absence of any remorse was also relevant...Two things make the November incidents considerably more serious. The first is the cumulative effect of the successive incidents and the second, above all, is the fact that the wife was entitled in November to regard herself as under the protection of the suspended committal order imposed in October, for which the husband plainly had not the slightest regard.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)

South Africa (2005), Constitutional Court

South Africa (2005), Constitutional Court

Omar v. Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others
(CCT 47/04) [2005] ZACC 17; 2006 (2) BCLR 253 (CC); 2006 (2) SA 289 (CC) (7 November 2005)

The appellant alleged that section 8 of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 was unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court held that this section does not violate the rights of access to the courts but rather serves to provide a mechanism to ensure compliance with protection orders.

“This matter deals with the constitutionality of section 8, measured against the rights to freedom and security of the person, a fair trial and access to courts, as protected in the Constitution... The context and purpose of the Act is again relevant in this regard… the complainant needs immediate protection by the police. There is no time once again to approach a court…The provision in section 8 for a warrant of arrest linked to the issuing of a protection order is clearly intended to provide a mechanism to ensure compliance with protection orders and to protect complainants against further domestic violence.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)

South Africa (1999), Constitutional Court

South Africa (1999), Constitutional Court

S. v. Baloyi and Others
(CCT29/99) [1999] ZACC 19; 2000 (1) BCLR 86 ; 2000 (2) SA 425 (CC) (3 December 1999)

Bayoli argued that the Prevention of Family Violence Act was unconstitutional, to the extent that is placed the burden on him to disprove his guilt. The Constitutional Court found that in cases of domestic violence, fairness to the complainant required that the enquiry proceedings be speedy and dispense with the normal process of charge and plea. However, in fairness to the accused, the presumption of innocence would still apply to the summary enquiry.

“All crime has harsh effects on society. What distinguishes domestic violence is its hidden, repetitive character and its immeasurable ripple effects on our society and, in particular, on family life… The [Act] does not purport to oust existing family and criminal law remedies and penalties, but to supplement and reinforce them.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)