Protection Orders Confirmed
Protection Orders Not Granted
the number mediated. The reason is provided by the qualitative data; during the focus group discussion all the participants argued that Protection Orders are not a popular means of solving domestic violence.
A total of 25 cases were referred for Protection Orders from 2009 to 2011, a mere 7% of the total number of domestic violence cases. Of these, 17 (68%) were granted an Interim Order by the presiding magistrate. Ten Protection Orders were later confirmed.
According to the information obtained from the Bulwer CAO and verified by the CCJD’s records for 2009 to 2011, in 2009, 10 cases were recommended for Protection Orders. Of these, seven Interim Protection Orders were granted and five of the seven were finalised or confirmed. In 2010, eight cases were recommended for Protection Orders; six Interim Protection Orders were granted, and two were finalised or confirmed. In 2011, seven cases were recommended for Protection Orders; four Interim Orders were granted and three were confirmed or finalised (Sangweni, 2012).
The number of mediations represents court time saved by the paralegals that are able to mediate the majority of cases that present at the office. The statistics show that when paralegals assisted the victims of domestic violence with their applications, 10 of the Interim Orders were finalised, a rate of 40%. The CBPs explained
that this relatively low proportion is due to the fact that many orders are withdrawn because neither the offender nor the victim appeared in court (BWP2). Stapleton (2007:43) points out that, community-based
Figure 6-6 Protection order referrals for clients at Bulwer CAO 2009-2011
6-167
initiatives such as the practice of restorative justice by CBPs reduce congestion in the courts. These descriptive statistics are concerned with understanding the CBPs’ work rather than a statistical comparison of case intake and case outcome.
Fernandez et al (2009:47) argue that CBPs, who have gained considerable experience in how clients perceive the law, its value and how they respond to it, would be the first port of call for any socio-legal researcher interested in studying their work. Therefore it is very important to capture the voice of the CBPs and community members in order to understand access to justice, restorative justice and the role of the paralegal in CRJ. The matrices that follow carefully retain the voices of study participants while briefly discussing the responses in relation to the literature, research objectives and research questions. This discussion is further explored in chapter 10, which provides a comparative cross-case (non-doctrinal) analysis of the social science data followed by doctrinal analysis, which integrates domestic violence law and case precedents with findings from the social science data.
6.3.2 Qualitative data from interviews of paralegals and a focus group of service recipients This section presents data adduced from paralegals and focus groups. It is organised under sub-headings related to (1) mediation procedure and process administered by paralegals, (2) access to justice, (3) use of the DVA in Bulwer and (4) the role of the Bulwer CAO in CRJ. One or more matrix displays narrative obtained during data collection. There is a separate matrix on mediation procedure and process for each case study. These particular matrices were co-created by the researcher and the CBPs who participated in the study. In the column on procedure, the researcher devised the list based on interview responses, and some are devised from the list of approaches to mediation programme design discussed by Landrum (2011:448).
However, in the column on process, the researcher makes every effort to preserve the voices of the respective paralegals. Community-based paralegals at different support centres often provided the same or similar descriptions of procedures and responses on process. A coding system is used to identify the respondents and a particular CAO. The code starts with the first letter of the CAO followed by a number – for example, BWP1 for a paralegal interviewed in Bulwer, BWP2 for another paralegal in Bulwer. The code for focus group narrative is BWFG. The coding process is the same for the other cases in case study chapters 7 to 9 with the only change being identification of the CAO. The matrix display of interview responses regarding mediation procedures and processes is followed by a series of matrices that are aligned with the sub-headings and that show relevant narrative from interviews and focus groups from each of the four case studies. Throughout the series of matrices (6-2 to 6-8), the column on the left depicts narrative from focus group discussions and the column on the right, narrative from paralegal interviews. In other words, each case study chapter displays, describes and interprets data from the paralegals and CCJD service recipients at a
6-168
single CAO, while chapter 10 uses cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2009:156) to compare and contrast the results across paralegals from all four CAOs and respective service recipients across all advice offices.
6.3.2.1 Mediation procedures and processes in Bulwer
The mediation process investigated is VOM, discussed in chapter 3. Matrix 6-1 details the procedure and process used for CRJ to address domestic violence cases as explained by the paralegals to the researcher. In the column on procedure, the researcher devised the list based on interview responses, and some are devised from the list of approaches to mediation programme design discussed by Landrum (2011:448). Matrix 6-1 also shows how paralegals perceive their role in the VOM procedure and process. It also provides evidence of how CBPs use restorative justice initiatives to address domestic violence, whether or not a restorative justice intervention is appropriate in domestic violence cases, and whether CBP-led initiatives increase access to justice, as well as identification of factors that contribute to the success or failure of restorative justice practices such as VOM. These are all research questions raised by this study.
Matrix 6-1 Mediation procedures and processes in Bulwer
Mediation procedure and process for Bulwer community-advice office Procedure Process
Referrals
Because we are based at the police station, the police, traditional court and other stakeholders such as social welfare refer all cases of domestic violence to our office. People seek the process after attending educational workshops. Others come to our houses, but we encourage them to come to the office.
“Courts are prone to delays and are confusing for rural people.” BWP2
“Still even today women do not understand the purpose of Protection Orders, and it is not properly explained at the police station, which is the first place of contact. The police refer all cases of domestic violence to our office first, this started this year. We explain how Protection Orders and mediation work, so that the victim can make an informed decision”. BWP2
“We ask a client who referred her, and what brought her to the office to establish that she had come to the right place.” BWP2
Voluntary participation
Participants prefer mediation, they choose it and they love it. Clients participate freely. One client mentioned that by choosing mediation the office is actually doing offenders a favour because they could have gone to court.
Therefore participation by offenders is not completely free, but is motivated by the fear of courts.
“Participation in mediation in this office is voluntary but the offender may participate because of fear of arrest.” BWP1 “The reason why some come running is because our calling letter says they need to present themselves at the office at the police station.” BWP2
“Since mediation is informal it encourages people to feel free to participate and to speak to us”. BWP2
Case intake
A rural person always asks a question that confirms if she has come at the right place. Thereafter the interview begins and the information is recorded in the
“Rural people are very careful with the information. They first have to make sure that they are speaking to the right person and have come to the right place that they have been referred to.” BWP1 “Others are fussy; they only want to speak to a paralegal that is married and older.” BWP2. “They say, ‘I do not want to speak about my marital affairs with someone who is not