By Susana Rowles
NEWS this week that the Royal Court handed down a community service order instead of a prison sentence to the perpetrator of “one of the worst cases of enduring domestic violence” the Island’s courts had ever seen has caused huge public outrage – and rightly so.
In response to the public’s indignation, the Attorney General is apparently considering the next steps.
Campaigners have rightly expressed concern about the message that such a lenient sentence sends to victims and abusers.
Courts all over the world have faced criticism for their leniency in handling domestic abuse cases, with such decisions sending a dangerous message to both survivors and perpetrators.
Taskforces addressing Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) have raised alarms about inadequate sentencing, early-release conditions and general apathy towards domestic violence cases – Jersey is no exception.
These weaknesses in the judicial system perpetuate a culture of impunity that emboldens abusers and silences victims.
The Jersey VAWG taskforce was set up because it was essential that we confront the issue head-on. The members of the Jersey taskforce worked tirelessly to identify the problems and have advocated for policies that prevent abuse and protect victims.
The Government of Jersey has accepted all the VAWG recommendations, and (some) money has been allocated in the Budget for their implementation. The States police have also accepted the VAWG recommendations and are making good progress. However, it is telling that the one remaining key stakeholder yet to publicly respond to and accept the recommendations of the task force report are the courts.
The police themselves have issued a reminder to Islanders this week that they will do everything in their power to bring perpetrators of domestic abuse to court, even when offences took place decades ago.
But what good is that promise if the courts don’t follow suit?
In the past, many courts used to treat domestic abuse as a “private matter” that was subject to “leniency” in sentencing. But even now, too often, we see offenders receive suspended sentences, conditional releases, or minimal time in prison for repeat offences.
This leniency is not just an injustice to victims – it is an open invitation for future violence.
Abusers who receive light sentences are more likely to reoffend, often escalating their violence. The court’s message to victims seems utterly disheartening: your safety is not our priority.
Survivors of domestic abuse face significant hurdles in seeking justice, including emotional trauma, fear of retaliation, and a legal system that appears to be indifferent to their suffering.
When the courts fail to issue strong penalties, they effectively revictimise survivors, who are left to feel that their suffering wasn’t “bad enough” to warrant a serious consequence.
I fail to see how banging a person’s head against a wall or throttling them is not “bad enough” for the attacker to end up in jail.
It is essential to recognise that domestic abuse is not a one-time incident. It is often part of a sustained pattern of coercion, violence and control.
Yet, the courts still tend to treat each act of violence in isolation, neglecting the broader pattern of abuse instead of focusing on the repeated harm that abusers inflict over time, or the time it takes a person to recover from such incidents. Too often, legal systems are content to look at individual charges and frequently fail to grasp the full scope of the violence or abuse involved. In this case, the leniency was “justified” by the perpetrator’s guilty plea and the fact that he hadn’t reoffended, as if any of this helped the victim in any way.
This lack of understanding results in inadequate sentencing and fails to hold perpetrators accountable for the harm, often prolonged, that they cause.
The ripple effects of judicial failure extend far beyond the immediate victims. Children who witness domestic abuse suffer long-term psychological effects, and communities at large are left more vulnerable to violent offenders.
When we see sentencing like this, it is impossible to reach any other conclusion other than the courts see domestic abuse as a less severe form of violence.
Domestic abuse is a systemic issue deeply rooted in power imbalances and societal tolerance for gender-based violence.
The courts need to understand and reflect this reality and play their part by imposing sentences that reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. This means longer prison terms, stricter release conditions and an acknowledgement of the ongoing nature of domestic abuse.
We also need to move towards recognising coercive control and psychological damage as domestic violence and to reform outdated attitudes to custody when children are involved.
The idea of a mother being forced to share custody of her children with the very person who abused her is difficult to fathom. Yet, for many women, this is a reality.
Family courts, in the name of maintaining a child’s relationship with both parents, often overlook the history of abuse or fail to grasp the lasting impact that domestic violence has on both the mother and the child.
Looking across the water to neighbouring France at the case of Dominique Pelicot, the “Monster of Avignon”, we can clearly see how “she made me do it” is still seen as a valid defence by many.
When interviewed by psychologists after his arrest, Pelicot stated: “My wife and I had a discussion about swinging, but she didn’t agree, so I drugged her.”
It is time for the courts to start treating domestic abuse cases with the seriousness they deserve. Only then can we truly begin to dismantle the cycles of abuse and create a safer and more just society for all.
-
Susana Rowles is an entrepreneur working in ed-tech. She was born in Portugal, spent most of her adult life in the UK and moved to Jersey in 2018. Susana is heavily involved in the local community and sits on the board of several Jersey charities. She has a keen interest in local politics and the impact it has on our community.