Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

Going somewhere slowly?
A comparison of the implementation of the
Domestic Violence Act (no. 116 of 1998)
in an urban and semi-urban site

by Lisa Vetten & Vera Schneider

Research report written for the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2006.

This Project has been made possible by the generous support of the Royal Danish Embassy.

Lisa Vetten is the former Manager of the Gender Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Vera Schneider is a former intern at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Executive Summary

The study aimed to monitor similarities and differences in the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) (no. 116 of 1998) in two different geographical settings (Alberton and Temba court), and to compare these findings with data from the previous Prevention of Family Violence Act (PFVA) (no 133 of 1993).

At both sites and in the PFVA data, applicants are typically women in their thirties seeking protection from their intimate partners. Protection is most commonly sought for emotional and physical abuse at both sites, and for physical and sexual abuse in the PFVA data.

Temba court is quicker at issuing interim protection orders, but only half the respondents are served with the order and applicants need to wait longer to have a hearing. Poor recording of information at Temba court was both a limitation of the study and a finding, and restricts access to justice for abused persons. The DVA is more effectively implemented at Alberton court due to quicker and more likely return of service, faster court dates, and better recording of information. Few breaches were recorded at either site.

Contents

1. Background and aim of the study
2. Methodology
   2.1 The sample and selected sites
      2.1.1 Description of the research sites
   2.2 Procedure
   2.3 Limitations of the study
3. Findings
   3.1 Descriptive information about the sample
      3.1.1 Number of DVA applications sampled
      3.1.2 Gender distribution of DVA sample
      3.1.3 Number of PFVA applications sampled and the gender distribution
      3.1.4 Gender distribution of applicants over time
      3.1.5 Age of applicants
      3.1.6 Age of respondents
      3.1.7 Employment status of the applicants
      3.1.8 Employment status of respondents
   3.2 Who do women and men seek protection from?
      3.2.1 The relationship between the applicant and respondent
      3.2.2 Who are the intimate partners (IP)?
      3.2.3 Who are the family members (FM)?
      3.2.4 Age differences between applicants seeking protection from an IP or FM
   3.3 Multiple respondents
   3.4 Types of abuse reported at Alberton and Temba
      3.4.1 Comparison of types of abuses reported by men and women at each site
      3.4.2 Comparison of types of abuses when the respondent is an intimate partner
      3.4.3 Comparison of types of abuses when the respondent is a family member
   3.5 Who else is affected by the abuse?
   3.6 Weapons used in the abuse
   3.7 Injuries recorded
   3.8 Reasons for urgency of application
   3.9 The return of service
      3.9.1 The cost of service
   3.10 The interim and final protection order
      3.10.1 Protection requested and protection granted
   3.11 The final hearing
      3.11.1 Rule extended (PFVA)
      3.11.2 The return date (DVA)
      3.11.3 Postponements (DVA)
      3.11.4 Parties present at the final hearing
   3.12 The final protection order
   3.13 Breach of protection order
4. Discussion and recommendations
5. References

1. Background and Aim of the Study

Domestic violence is a worldwide problem and South Africa is no exception. In a study of three South Africa Provinces, Jewkes et al. (2000) found that one in four South African women have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner. The first piece of legislation introduced by a South African Government to deal with domestic violence was the Prevention of Family Violence Act (no. 133 of 1993) ("the PFVA"). This was replaced with the Domestic Violence Act (no. 116) ("the DVA") in 1998.

The DVA is a civil remedy and allows a protection order to be granted to a victim of intra-familial or domestic abuse ("the applicant") against the perpetrator of the abuse ("the respondent"). In contrast to the limited scope of the PFVA, the DVA protects married or divorced parties, individuals within same sex relationships, co-habitants, parents, dating couples, children and extended family. The definition of domestic violence has also been broadened from physical and sexual abuse to include emotional, verbal and psychological abuse, economic abuse, damage to property, stalking, and other abuses, such as forced removal from the home. Unlike the PFVA, the DVA also sets out roles and responsibilities for persons directly involved in implementing or monitoring the Act, including the South African Police Service, the clerks of the court, magistrates, prosecutors, and the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD).

Research conducted in the Western Cape has analysed the implementation of the DVA's policies and procedures (Parenzee, Artz & Moult, 2001), as well as the applicant's perspectives of its utility and efficacy (Mathews & Abrahams, 2001). Despite its progressiveness, findings show that the DVA is inconsistently applied (Artz, 2003), and that its effectiveness is limited by court constraints (Mathews & Abrahams, 2001). It has also been found that insufficient budget and resources have been allocated to its implementation (Vetten, Budlender, & Schneider, 2005). The present study aimed to monitor the implementation of the DVA at two courts in different geographical areas, and to compare these findings with data from the previous PFVA. The paper also compares present findings with those of other South African studies on the DVA.

The specific objectives of the present study were as follows:

  1. To describe and compare the profile of applicants who applied for protection orders during the sampled time period.
  2. To describe and compare the profile of the respondents and how they are related to the applicants.
  3. To describe and compare the types of domestic violence from which applicants seek protection.
  4. To describe and compare the details and status of the interim and final protection orders.
  5. To compare information from applications for protection orders from the DVA and the applications for interdicts from the PFVA.
  6. To assess how the present findings corroborate or contradict findings from other South African research.

2. Methodology

2.1 The sample and selected sites

A retrospective review of applications for protection orders registered over a two year period (2000-2001) was undertaken. The selected sites were Alberton and Temba court. To provide some comparison of applications under the DVA and those of the PFVA, 301 applications for interdicts from 1999 registered under the PFVA were captured from Alberton court. Information regarding the PFVA could not be collected from Temba as these records had been destroyed.

2.1.1 Description of the research sites

Alberton court is situated in an urban area east of Johannesburg. It services areas such as Katlehong, Tokoza, Alberton and Eden Park, and dealt with 1949 applications in 2004. Temba court is situated in a semi-urban area outside of Tshwane. It services various semi-urban and rural areas in the Moretele Local Municipality of the North West province, and dealt with 1819 applications for protection orders in 2004.

2.2 Procedure

Written permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Department of Justice and the Chief Magistrate of Alberton and Temba court on condition that no identifying information of the applicants or respondents would be used in the report, and that these persons would not be contacted. A structured questionnaire was designed in accordance with the information required on the application for a protection order. Data that was captured included particulars of the applicant and respondent, the acts of domestic violence, other persons affected by the abuse, the urgency of the application, details of orders requested and granted, the status of the interim and final protection order, and contraventions of the protection orders where applicable. Fieldworkers were trained to collect the data. The data was coded and then analysed using SPPS version 10.0.

2.3 Limitations of the study

While our sample included applicants from different geographical areas, we cannot assume that the results apply to all men and women seeking protection orders, and generalisations can only be made with caution. A particular limitation with regard to the Temba data is the smaller sample size. This resulted from Temba court losing or being unable to account for several protection orders from the required time period. As the available data was often scarce, it is recognised that the findings from Temba may be an under-representation of DVA use at the site. The accuracy of a small proportion of applications was also questioned (for example, in some forms the interim order was granted before the date of application). We attempted to check the application forms but the records were unavailable. To preserve the integrity of the data, irregular information was captured as unknown. We acknowledge that this affected the sample size for the relevant questions.

3. Findings

3.1 Descriptive information about the sample
3.1.1 Number of DVA applications sampled

A total of 2208 applications for protection orders under the DVA were captured

Ratio:
Applications from Alberton court: Applications from Temba court
2: 1
3.1.2 Gender distribution of DVA sample
Ratio:
Female applicants (Alberton): Male applicants (Alberton)
6: 1
 
Ratio:
Female applicants (Temba): Male applicants (Temba)
5: 1
3.1.3 Number of PFVA applications sampled and the gender distribution

A total of 301 applications for interdicts under the PFVA were captured. Substantially more women sought an interdict.

3.1.4 Gender distribution of applicants over time

Figure 1 shows that a greater proportion of women seek protection orders across the sites and over time. It also demonstrates that the number of men seeking protection from domestic violence has increased since the promulgation of the DVA.

Figure 1: Percentage of applications from women and men at each site
*Sex of applicant was unknown in 1 DVA case and 2 PFVA cases.
3.1.5 Age of applicants

Table 1 shows that at all sites and over time, women and men in their 30s are most likely to seek protection orders.

Table 1: Sex of applicant X number of applications per age category
Age category

<20 21-30 31-40 41-50 55-64 65+ Total
Alberton Female applicant 47 385 430 250 87 25 1224
Male applicant 9 34 64 54 34 17 212
Temba Female applicant 6 112 196 120 47 25 506
Male applicant 1 16 40 40 38 13 148
PFVA
data		 Female applicant 1 64 130 52 12
259
Male applicant
1 8 3 2
14

Applicants in Temba tended to be older than applicants in Alberton and under the PFVA. No differences were found between the PFVA and Alberton DVA data.

Male applicants tended to be older than female applicants in the DVA applications, but were approximately the same age in the PFVA applications.

  • Median age male applicants Alberton: 40 years
  • Median age female applicants Alberton: 34 years
 
  • Median age male applicants Temba: 46 years
  • Median age female applicants Temba: 37 years
 
  • Median age male applicants (PFVA): 36.5 years
  • Median age female applicants (PFVA): 35 years
3.1.6 Age of respondents

Respondents were approximately the same age at the sites and over time.

Male and female respondents were typically in their mid-to-late thirties across the sites and over time.

  • Median age male respondents Alberton: 36 years
  • Median age female respondents Alberton: 35 years
 
  • Median age male respondents Temba: 39 years
  • Median age female respondents Temba: 33 years
 
  • Median age male respondents PFVA: 38 years
  • Median age female respondents PFVA: 36 years
3.1.7 Employment status of the applicants

More PFVA applicants were employed compared to DVA applicants.

Nearly one in two Temba applicants was unemployed compared to one in four in Alberton. One in three PFVA applicants was unemployed.

The findings suggest that over time, protection orders are more likely to be sought by employed applicants.

3.1.7.1 Employment status and gender

While male applicants in Temba are more likely to be employed that female applicants, the overall findings suggest that male and female applicants are almost equally likely to be employed or unemployed, and that protection orders are typically sought by employed men and women.

3.1.8 Employment status of respondents

Respondents were more likely to be employed compared to the applicants, but there was a higher rate of unemployed respondents in Temba (38%) compared to Alberton (18%) and the PFVA data (23%).

3.1.8.1 Employment status and gender

The findings suggest that female respondents are more likely to be unemployed than male respondents.

3.2 Who do women and men seek protection from?

We found that the category with the highest number of applications for protection orders was female applicant/male respondent. This included intimate partners, mothers seeking protection from their sons, daughters from their fathers, and sisters from their brothers, amongst others. Female applicant/female respondent had the least number of applications.

Approximately four out of five respondents in Alberton and Temba were men. Almost all respondents in the PFVA sample were men.

Proportion of male respondents
    ♣ Alberton: 86%
    ♣ Temba: 80%
    ♣ PFVA: 95%
Proportion of female respondents
    ♣ Alberton: 14%
    ♣ Temba: 20%
    ♣ PFVA: 5%

Our findings show that while the respondent is typically male at both sites and over time, the number of women reported to be the respondent has increased.

3.2.1 The relationship between the applicant and respondent

Given the ambit of the PFVA, all applications were made against an intimate partner. Because of this, the following section only compares the PFVA data where appropriate.

Table 2 demonstrates that under the DVA, male and female applicants typically seek protection from intimate partners at both sites. However, a higher number of applications against family members were made in Temba.

Table 2: Total number of applications against an intimate partner or familial respondent (DVA data)

 Type of respondent Alberton
(n = 1525)		 Temba
(n = 665)		 Total
(n = 2190)





Male applicant Intimate Partner 135 76 211
Family Member 90 71 161
Female applicant Intimate Partner 1098 400 1498
Family Member 202 118 320
Unknown
15 5 20

From the total proportion of applications sampled in Alberton, more than two-thirds of applications for protection orders were made by women in intimate partnerships.

From the total proportion of applications sampled in Temba, more than half were made by women against intimate partners.

3.2.2 Who are the intimate partners (IP)?

Table 3 shows that across the sites and over time, intimate partners were typically the applicant's husband or wife.

Table 3: Type of intimate partner relationship (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton
(n = 1235)		 Temba
(n = 477)		 PFVA data
(n = 286)
Married 49% 68% 73%
Dating 15% 11%
Divorced/separated 11% 1% 6%
Co-habiting 11% 8% 18%
Formerly dating 8% 10% -
Lovers 2% 1% -
Engaged 1% - -
Other -
3%
3.2.3 Who are the family members (FM)?

Family member respondents were typically the applicant's children at both sites (see Table 4).

Table 4: Type of familial relationship (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton (n = 292) Temba (n = 189)
Sons and daughters 58% 54%
Brother 12% 16%
Father 9% 6%
Sister 5% 8%
Multiple respondents 4% 6%
Nephew 3% -
Mother 3% 3%
3.2.4 Age differences between applicants seeking protection from an IP or FM

Applicants seeking protection from intimate partners tended to be younger than applicants seeking protection from family members at both sites (see Table 5). This could be explained by the proportion of parents seeking protection from their children.

Table 5: Comparison of median age of applicant seeking protection from an IP or FM

 Alberton Temba
Type of respondent Median age male applicant Median age female applicant Median age male applicant Median age female applicant
Intimate partner 37 years 33 years 40 years 36 years
Family member 47 years 44 years 50 years 45 years
3.3 Multiple respondents

While a protection order is typically taken out against one particular individual, an unanticipated occurrence of "multiple respondents" was found in 12 cases in Alberton and 11 cases in Temba. This implied that the protection order, if confirmed, would protect the applicant from both persons. It is unclear from the wording of section 1 (xx) of the DVA1 whether this is in fact possible or whether it is necessary to have submitted two separate applications.

3.4 Types of abuse reported at Alberton and Temba

Table six shows that the types of abuses reported at the DVA sites were significantly different. With the exception of other abuses, such as forced removal from the home, more applicants in Alberton seek protection from all types of abuses. The table also demonstrates that applicants most commonly sought protection from emotional, verbal or psychological abuse, followed by physical abuse. Given the definition of abuse under the PFVA, it is not surprising that physical abuse was the most commonly reported form of violence. Statistical comparisons were not made between the PFVA and DVA abuses due to their differential definitions. However, the findings do suggest that the proportion of applicants seeking protection from physical abuse has declined. This may be explained by the broadened definition of domestic violence and the wider range of abuses applicants can seek protection from.

Table 6: Types of abuses reported at each site (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)
Key: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Alberton
(n = 1537)		 Temba
(n = 671)		 PFVA data
(n = 301)
Emotional, verbal, psychological 89%*** 82%
Physical abuse 78%*** 65% 95%
Economic/financial abuse 28%*** 11%
Damage to property 22%*** 16%
Other 20% 22%* 89%
Stalking 12%*** 3%
Sexual abuse 10%*** 5% 17%
3.4.1 Comparison of types of abuses reported by men and women at each site

Table 7 compares the abuses men and women seek protection from at the DVA sites.2 The PFVA sample was not included because of the insufficient sample size of male applications.

Table 7: Gender of applicants and type of abuse (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton (n = 1537) Temba (n = 671)

Male applicant
(n = 230)		 Female applicant
(n = 1307)		 Male applicant
(n = 149)		 Female applicant
(n = 521)
Emotional, verbal, psychological 87% 89% 89% 80%
Physical abuse 60% 82% 43% 71%
Economic/financial abuse 15% 31% 9% 11%
Damage to property 33% 20% 25% 14%
Other (including eviction) 17% 21% 15% 24%
Stalking 9% 12% 3% 3%
Sexual abuse 5% 11% 1% 6%
3.4.2 Comparison of types of abuses when the respondent is an intimate partner

Table 8 compares the abuses applicants in intimate partnerships seek protection from. Sample sizes for engaged, mistress and lover relationships were too small to make comparisons. No significant differences were found regarding divorced/separated couples and types of abuses, and these relationships are not included in the table.

Table 8: Applicants in intimate partnerships and type of abuse (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Type of intimate relationship
Married
(customary/civil)		 Dating Formerly dating Co-habiting
Type of abuse Alberton  (n = 603) Temba    (n = 325) Alberton  (n = 186) Temba    (n = 54) Alberton  (n = 104) Temba    (n = 49) Alberton  (n = 135) Female applicants (n =38)
Emotional,
verbal,
psychological		 90%*** 80% 84% 85% 95% 90% 87% 74%
Physical 83%*** 72% 85%*** 72% 81%*** 39% 88% 87%
Economic abuse 34%*** 13% 21% 19% 17%** 6% 39%*** 11%
Damage to property 19%** 15% 22% 19% 19% 20% 27%*** 3%
Other (including eviction) 22% 28% 18%** 9% 14% 2% 20% 21%
Stalking 6%*** 2% 22%*** 4% 36%*** 10% 5% -
Sexual 11%** 6% 17% 19% 14% 6% 13% 3%
Key: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001
3.4.3 Comparison of types of abuses when the respondent is a family member

Table 9 compares applicants at Alberton and Temba court seeking protection from their child. Other familial relationships were excluded due to insufficient sample sizes.

Table 9: Types of abuses reported by familial applicant against their children (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton
(n = 172)		 Temba
(n = 104)
Emotional, verbal, psychological 93% 91%
Physical abuse 63% 59%
Economic abuse 22%** 11%
Damage to property 33%** 20%
Other (including eviction) 18% 19%
Stalking 1% 1%
Sexual abuse 2% -
Key: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001
3.5 Who else is affected by the abuse?

In accordance with section four of the application for a protection order, information regarding other persons affected by the abuse was captured. According to Parenzee et al. (2001), however, the wording of this section in the application form may create confusion for complainants and so more persons may in fact be affected but were not reported.

Figure 2 demonstrates the ways in which other persons are affected by the abuse at the sites.

Figure 2: ways other persons are affected by the abuse (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)
3.6 Weapons used in the abuse

Weapons were categorised in four ways: gun, knife, sjambok and other. A category of "multiple weapons" was created to account for occurrences when more than one weapon was used (see Table 10).

Table 10: Type of weapon used (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)
Type of weapon used Alberton
(n = 623)		 Temba
(n = 183)		 PVF data
(n = 179)
Other (including general household items) 31% 55% 28%
Gun 26% 23% 24%
Knife 23% 14% 23%
Multiple weapons 19% 4% 21%
Sjambok 2% 3% 3%
3.7 Injuries recorded
3.8 Reasons for urgency of application

Section six of the protection order requests the provision of reasons why the application should be considered as a matter of urgency. Ten different reasons were coded and more than one reason was allowed.

Table 11 shows that the most common reasons applications were asked to be considered urgent was a fear that the respondent will continue beating, hitting or otherwise physically abusing the applicant, a general feeling of being threatened, or fearing the respondent would kill the applicant. More than one reason was allowed.

Table 11: Reason for urgency of application (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton  
(n = 1276)		 Temba  
(n = 31)		 PFVA data  
(n = 331)
Afraid the respondent will continue beating, hitting or otherwise physically abusing the applicant 27% 21% 38%
General feeling of being threatened and wanting to protect rights, security purposes 23% 33% 11%
Afraid respondent will carry out threats of killing applicant 20% 29% 23%
For the respondent to stop verbally abusing the applicant (including swearing and insulting) 11% 4% 9%
For the respondent to pay for accommodation and financially support the family 10% 8% 5%
Afraid respondent will evict the applicant 4% - 13%
Afraid that the respondent will carry out threats of damaging/ selling property 3% 4% 1%
Applicants afraid that they might be forced into non-consensual sexual acts 1% - <1%
For visitation rights to be taken away 1% - -
Applicant afraid that they may take the law into their own hands and do something rash <1% - -
3.9 The return of service

Figure 3 shows that over half the orders are served within a week after the interdict was granted.

Figure 3: Time taken for return of service after PFVA interdict granted (n = 152)

In accordance with section 5 (6) of the DVA, the applicant is not protected from domestic violence until the respondent has been served with an order and there is proof of that order being served. A notice was not served in 9% of cases in Alberton and 1% in Temba. However, information of return of service was not recorded in 15% of cases in Alberton and more than half in Temba (57%), and it is possible that these figures indicate no return of service. This may imply that approximately one in four applicants in Alberton and more than half in Temba were not able to access relief from domestic violence due to non-return of service.

Figure 4 shows that the shortest period of time to serve an order was the same day of application, and that more orders are served on this day in Temba (42%) than in Alberton (3%).

However, 67% of orders were served within the first week the interim order was issued in Alberton, compared to only 43% in Temba.

Figure 4: Time taken for return of service after the interim order granted
Table 12: Comparison of return of service Alberton and Temba court (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)
Alberton    
(n = 1071)		 Temba    
(n = 275)
How was the order served? *** Order attached to the door of the respondent's home 33% -
Served to the respondent directly 32% 89%
Order served to another person over the age of 16 32% 9%
Place where the order was served*** Respondents home 92% 83%
Respondents workplace 3% 9%
Unknown 4% 3%
Other 1% 5%
Person who served the order*** Sheriff 91% 20%
Police 2% 80%
Other 3% -
Not recorded 5% < 1%
Person who paid for order to be served*** The state 70% 3%
The applicant 28% 1%
Other 0.1% -
Unknown 1% 97%
Key: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001
3.9.1 The cost of service
3.10 The interim and final protection order

The majority of applicants at both DVA sites requested an interim protection order. Interim interdicts were not available under the PFVA and comparisons cannot be made.

3.10.1 Protection requested and protection granted

Because there are only a few terms and conditions that can be requested under the PFVA compared to the DVA, only broad comparisons can be made in this section.

Table 13 shows that the majority of PFVA applicants requested that the respondent not physically abuse them. One in three requested the respondent not prevent them from entering their home. In all instances of protection requested, the court ordered more conditions than what was originally applied for in each category.

Table 13: Protection requested and granted under PFVA
Order Requested by applicant Granted in interdict
Not to assault or threaten the applicant 92% 90%
Not to prevent applicant or their child from entering the home 37% 59%
Not to enter the matrimonial home or parts of the home 14% 26%

Section seven of the DVA sets out the prohibitions that can be enforced on the respondent in the protection order. The applicant is required to select which kind of relief they require, and the court may impose any additional conditions which are deemed necessary to protect and provide for the safety and well- being of the applicant. Table fourteen compares protection requested and protection granted in the interim order. Unlike the PFVA data, a strange pattern emerged at both DVA sites where fewer requests were granted than what was originally applied for in each category.

Table 14: Protection requested and protection granted

 Alberton Temba
Order Requested by applicant Granted in interim order Requested by applicant Granted in interim order
Not to commit any act of domestic violence 80% 86% 93% 85%
Not to get help to commit any act of domestic violence 52% 7% 92% 12%
Not to enter the complainants residence 35% 30% 25% 20%
Not to prevent entry into the house 28% 23% 16% 14%
Not to enter the complainants place of employment 20% 11% 9% 6%
Not to enter the shared residence 18% 4% 3% >1%
Not to enter a specified part of the residence 11% 2% 2% >1%
Respondent refused contact with children 8% 2% >1% >1%

The following requests constituted less than 6% of cases in Alberton and less than 3% in Temba:

  1. Physical address of the complainant is not to be disclosed
  2. Respondent to pay monetary relief
  3. Respondent granted the following contact with children
  4. Respondent to pay mortgage
  5. The SAPS to retrieve a weapon
  6. A Peace officer to accompany complainant

The first four orders that were not typically requested or granted at both sites may apply to divorcing couples who are separating their assets and determining custody of their children. The lack of requests for these orders may be explained by the few divorcees in the sample. Forced payment of mortgage or monetary relief may also be low given the rate of employment of applicants. The last two orders are more difficult to explain, but it is possible that the applicants are not aware of the possibility of having a weapon removed, or that magistrates do not enforce the order. Applicants may also prefer not to use peace officers to solve domestic disputes, or may have utilised their services in the past and were disappointed by the results.

3.11 The final hearing
3.11.1 Rule extended (PFVA)

Where applicable, rules were typically extended once or twice. Reasons why rules were extended were not captured.

Figure 5: Number of times rule extended (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)
3.11.2 The return date (DVA)

Return dates for the final hearing was highly variable at both sites, but hearings occur faster at Alberton than at Temba court.

Median return date (DVA)
3.11.3 Postponements (DVA)

Information from this section of the DVA applications was typically scarce. In some instances, it was known whether a case was postponed, but not how many times or for what reasons. Thus the following information has variable sample sizes.

Figure 6: Number of times the hearing was postponed at each site (DVA data)
Table 15: Reasons why the hearing was postponed (figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

 Alberton
(n = 93)		 Temba
(n = 52)
Respondent not served with a protection order 33% -
Parties were absent at the hearing 17% -
Parties were given a warning 13% -
Allegations against respondent were not true or more evidence needed 8% 88%
Applicants referred to other services 3% 2%
Reconciliation between the parties 5% -
Withdrawal/parties agreed to postpone 20% 10%
3.11.4 Parties present at the final hearing
Table 16: Parties present at the final hearing

 Alberton (n = 891) Temba (n = 304)
Both applicant and respondents 55% 74%
Applicant only 28% 16%
Neither applicant or respondent 12% 2%
Respondent only 5% 8%
3.12 The final protection order

Due to insufficient information, reasons for amendments or dismissal of orders cannot be extrapolated.

Figure 7: Status of final protection order

Table 17 demonstrates the relationship between the person attending court and the status of the final protection order.

Table 17: Comparison of party present at the hearing and the status of the order
Alberton (n = 848) Temba (n = 279)
Parties present at final hearing Status of final order Parties present at final hearing Status of final order
Both applicant and respondent (n = 481) 81% confirmed Both applicant and respondent (n = 209) 73% confirmed
16% set aside 18% set aside
2% amended 6% struck off
<1% % struck off; withdrawn, postponed sine die 3% withdrawn, postponed sine die
Applicant only
(n = 228)		 90% confirmed Applicant only
(n = 42)		 76% confirmed
7% set aside 14% struck off the roll
2% struck off the roll 7% set aside
1% withdrawn, postponed sine die 2% withdrawn, postponed sine die
Respondent only
(n = 40)		 63% confirmed Respondent only
(n = 24)		 50% struck off the roll
30% set aside 46% set aside
5% struck off the roll 4% withdrawn, postponed sine die
2% withdrawn, postponed sine die 0% confirmed
Neither applicant nor
respondent (n =99)		 78% confirmed Neither applicant nor
respondent (n = 4)		 0% confirmed. All orders
were struck off the roll
11% withdrawn, postponed sine die
8% set aside
4% struck off the roll
3.13 Breach of protection order

More breaches were reported in Temba compared to Alberton and the PFVA.

Figure 8: Time span of breaches of protection order

4. Discussion and recommendations

Our study shows that a wide range of applicants, including men, appear to be utilising the DVA, and that other persons, particularly children, are affected by the abuse. At both sites and over time, applicants are typically women in their thirties seeking protection from their male intimate partner. Thus the category with the highest number of applications for protection orders was female applicant/male respondent. This is consistent with findings in Parenzee et al. (2001) and Mathews and Abrahams (2001).

At all sites and over time, married men and women were substantially more likely to seek protection from their spouse compared to other types of intimate relationships. While the findings corroborate Mathews and Abrahams (2001) and Parenzee et al. (2001), the result was surprising because other South African research has found that married couples are encouraged to follow a traditional mediation route in cases of domestic violence rather than seeking statutory recourse, and that co-habiting women are more susceptible to intimate femicide. Our finding may be explained in various ways. Firstly, the abuse may have continued for a number of years and a protection order was sought after other methods, such as traditional mediation, had failed. Secondly, the option of leaving the abusive relationship may be slight because of economic dependence, or thirdly, domestic violence may be more common in married relationships.

We found that protection is most commonly sought for emotional and physical abuse at both sites. While applicants in Alberton seek significantly more protection from almost all types of abuse, this may be an artefact of the poor recording of information from Temba. Domestic violence under the PFVA is narrowly defined, and our findings show that the number of applicants seeking protection from physical and sexual abuse has declined. This may be explained by the broader definition of domestic violence under the DVA. Despite approximately two thirds of applicants having been physically abused, few injuries were recorded, particularly at Temba. This prevents any substantive recommendations regarding health care for abused persons from being made, but the findings question whether sufficient records of injuries are kept, whether adequate services are available, and whether these services are accessible.

We found that a weapon was used in approximately one in three cases at both sites, but that the SAPS were very seldom requested to seize the weapon. Parenzee et al. (2001) also found that very few weapons were ordered to be removed when compared with the frequency with which weapons are mentioned in the applicants' affidavits. In our study, reasons for urgency of application at both sites and over time were fearfulness of continued or imminent physical danger or of being killed. This finding, in conjunction with the number of weapons used and the lack of requests for SAPS to seize a weapon, raises concern about the effectiveness of the DVA in providing a safe and reliable remedy against abuse.

Given the very high proportion of interim orders that are issued at both sites, abused men and women appear to be given at least temporary relief. Temba court is quicker at issuing interim protection orders, but applicants need to wait longer to have a hearing and only half the respondents are served with the order. Moreover, most hearings are postponed at least once at both sites, and this undermines the ability of the DVA to intervene quickly. Furthermore, unlike in the PFVA data, fewer requests for particular kinds of protection are ordered by magistrates at both sites. This may be an artefact of the data capturing, but it could also suggest that magistrates typically give less protection than is requested, or that many of the individual requests tend to be subsumed under the first option of "not to commit any acts of violence".

Most of the applicants and respondents arrived at the final hearing. This challenges the popular assumption that domestic violence cases are often withdrawn and hence a waste of time, energy and resources. Findings also suggested that the presence or absence of either party impacts on the granting of the final order at Temba. While at Alberton, the order was typically confirmed irrespective of who was present, at Temba, the absence of the applicant typically results in the order being dismissed.

Few breaches were recorded. While it is possible that few breaches actually occurred, it is surmised that many breaches are unreported. The finding of multiple breaches was unanticipated, and it is unclear how the applicant was able to report a breach more than once without the police intervening in the first instance. The finding may suggest that police do not arrest the respondent unless the breach has occurred more than once. If this were the case, the police member would be liable for charges of misconduct as per section 18 (4) of the DVA.

The findings suggest that to a large extent, the DVA is implemented more effectively at Alberton court due to the faster court dates, quicker and more likely return of service, and better recording of information. Applicants at Temba court face more problems with court delays and poor recording of information which could affect the outcome of the case. The loss of files also implies poor case management and has concerning implications for access to justice.

Recommendations

  • Because of the wide range of applicants seeking protection orders and the number of children and other persons affected by the abuse, it is recommended that services aim to provide a systemic approach to helping abused persons.

  • Because applicants in intimate partnerships and family relations seek relief from different types of abuse, more research should be conducted on domestic violence and relationship types. This research could consider why more men seek protection from family members, as well as the link between domestic violence and child abuse.

  • Because of the risk to the applicant's safety, it is recommended that court officials be more proactive in ordering SAPS to seize a weapon, even where applicants do not request this.

  • It is recommended that more cognisance be taken of the return date of hearing particularly in Temba, as the longer the order remains unconfirmed, the more susceptible the applicant is to abuse.

  • Because the findings of the present study are limited to the sampled research sites, more research should be conducted on monitoring the DVA in other sites to assess similarities and differences with the present findings.

Notes:

1 This section defines the term respondent as "a person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with a complainant and who has committed or allegedly committed and act of domestic violence against the complainant".

2 For more comparison between men's and women's use of the DVA, the reader is referred to Schneider & Vetten (2006) "Men, women and the DVA", the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Johannesburg.

5. References

Artz. L. (2003). Magistrates and the Domestic Violence Act: Issues of Interpretation. Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town: South Africa.

Jewkes, R., Penn-Kekana, L., Levin, J., Ratsaka, M., & Schrieber, M. (2000). Prevalence of emotional, physical and sexual abuse of women in three South African provinces. South African Medical Journal, 91(5), 421-428.

Mathews, S., & Abrahams, N. (2001). An analysis of the impact of the Domestic Violence Act (No. 116 of 1998) on women. The Gender Advocacy programme and the Medical Research Council (Gender and Health Research Group), South Africa.

Parenzee, P., Artz, L., & Moult, K. (2001). Monitoring the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act: First research report 2000-2001. Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town: South Africa.

Vetten, L., Budlender, B., Schneider, V. (2005). The Price of Protection: Costing the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act: no 116 of 1998. Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Johannesburg.

© Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

 
Home | Programmes | Research | Consultancy | Coming Events |
Staff | Internships | Annual Report | Background | Aims |
African Transitional Justice Research Network |
Justice in Perspective | Links

eXTReMe Tracker