WATCH | Lara Dimitrijevic: ‘Judiciary should have standard procedure on dealing with domestic violence’

Members of the judiciary should have standard operating procedures on how to deal with domestic violence cases, lawyer and women’s rights activist Lara Dimitrijevic believes.  

In a week which saw the news cycle dominated by two major cases—that of former Repubblika President Robert Aquilina and former Labour Floriana councillor Justin Haber—Dimitrijevic tells me more needs to be done to sensitise institutions to the reality of domestic violence. 

The two cases drew strong reactions over respective responses by the judiciary and the Labour Party. 

Speaking on the Aquilina case without delving into specifics, the activist voices her concern on reports Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi did not issue an arrest warrant against the alleged aggressor. 

“We felt the court fell short of carrying out its obligation to protect that victim. The court’s failure to issue an arrest warrant meant the police did not have the security to continue with investigation, while ensuring the victim is protected,” she says.  

According to reports, a risk assessment with the victim returned a high score, but despite this an arrest warrant was still not issued.  

“Why should someone stop short of taking all the necessary measures to protect the victim and do their duty?” she asks. 

Speaking on the Haber case, Dimitrijevic says it highlighted a kind of domestic violence which is regularly overlooked.  

“In cases of domestic violence between couples, people will say how difficult it is to do that to someone you love. But imagine how harder it is to report and see dragged to court your sibling. I have siblings, and yes, we have fought and argued, but to get to the level of reporting your brother to the authorities is very, very difficult,” she tells me when asked to describe how difficult it is for victims like Pearl Vella Haber [Justin Haber’s sister] to come forward with their story.  

The lawyer also slams the Labour Party’s reaction to Haber’s conviction, saying she cannot understand what took it so long to decide whether he should be removed from the party.  

“There is nothing to discuss; the crime has been committed,” she says. 

I also ask Dimitrijevic about press statements issued by women’s organisations that criticised the actions of the judiciary, contrary to past occasions when police behaviour was under scrutiny.  

“When we look at the authorities, we cannot look at them in a vacuum. We cannot look at only the police, but the whole system. We need to look at access to justice. It is something holistic, and the law courts form part of the chain,” she tells me, stating police procedure on such cases has improved. 

The following is an excerpt of the interview.  

Follow the full interview on maltatoday.com.mt and our socials.   

We have seen organisations speak of the imbalance in how authorities have handled the Robert Aquilina case… 

I want to make it clear I will not be delving into specifics on the case. Even us as an organisation we have never issued statements directed towards Robert Aquilina. Despite our previous criticism of the police, this time the police proceeded as they should. The police did their job, they received the report, and without fear or favour investigated the case. As was reported by your newspaper, and as was confirmed publicly, the victim’s risk assessment returned a high score, and they requested an arrest warrant.  

We felt the Court of Justice fell short of carrying out its obligation to protect that victim. 

[…] 

I would also like to say the country’s laws allow for the issuing of protection orders. But for that protection order to be issued, court proceedings must be underway. So, if the police are investigating a case, and have not yet charged the individual in court, no protection order can be issued.  

We also have the temporary protection order which is issued for imminent risk. The law allows for these to be issued, but it’s not the first time police officers told us the courts tell them to move ahead with the arrest if they feel there is an imminent risk. 

If we had to compare the Robert Aquilina case, and the way the judiciary acted to other similar cases, how does it compare? Can we start drawing conclusions on whether failure to arrest was the result because of who he is?  

We don’t have statistics, and so I cannot tell you. What I can speak about is what I observe as a lawyer working in the courts. Even from reports on the media, we are seeing how more people are being charged with domestic violence cases. That already shows me more arrest warrants are being issued.  

It is also not the first time, even in cases I have worked on, where the arrest warrant was not issued. One case that comes to mind is a rape case, which in of itself is a very serious case.  

That is why we felt spoke on the need to mandatorily train the judiciary. I understand everyone has their own views, but this is something which could lead to a significantly worse crime—femicide.  

Why should someone stop short of taking all the necessary measures to protect the victim and do their duty? 

In these cases, we normally see organisations criticising the police force over their shortcomings, but in this case, we are seeing criticism directed towards the judiciary. Is this a question of shortcomings in the police force being solved, and now shortcomings within the judiciary needing to be resolved? 

I won’t say I am happy, but yes, I am content that we have seen improvement within the police force. There were hurdles, and I was among the first to criticise them, but yes improvement has been registered.  

When we look at the authorities, we cannot look at them in a vacuum. We cannot look at only the police, but the whole system. We need to look at access to justice. It is something holistic, and the law courts form part of the chain.  

[…] 

Obviously, you have different judges and magistrates, but in the same way I had called for standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the police, the same should apply to the judiciary.  

The judiciary should have some sort of guidelines. If not guidelines, there should be something which binds them at law. We need to ensure the country is in line with its international obligations. 

On Justin Haber. When we spoke to the Labour Party, they said they would analyse the sentence internally, and take a decision on his future. Do you think the PL was in the wrong or in the right to do so? 

Our position as an NGO is clear on this. I will be speaking on the specifics of this case because he was found guilty by a Court of Law. He was found guilty, and I could not understand what the Labour Party was going to discuss. 

So, we have the Labour Party and government saying they want to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence, but at the same time send the message that something like this has to be discussed internally before action is taken. It is not acceptable.  

I hope internal protocols bar people found guilty of a criminal offence, whatever it may be, from holding a position in the party. There is nothing to discuss, the crime has been committed.