Women and Justice: Keywords

Domestic Case Law

Cправа №187/1459/15к (Case No. 187/1459/15к) Петриківського районного суду Дніпропетровської області (Petrykivskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast) (2016)

Abortion and reproductive health rights

The complainant visited the gynecologist for an abortion. In the process, the doctor damaged the complainant’s uterus, bladder, and intestines. The complainant needed surgery to repair the damage and lost the ability to bear children. During the court hearing, the State’s forensic medical examiner found that the doctor did not violate medical protocols. The examiner also found that the doctor's actions did not cause the complainant’s organ damage, and that the accident occurred due to the peculiarities of the complainant’s body. The court of first instance found the doctor not guilty, taking into account the doctor's impressive professional qualifications. The prosecutor filed an appeal, but later refused to continue because of insufficient evidence of the doctor’s guilt. This case is important because it shows the difficulty in gathering evidence in criminal cases related to abortion and the protection of women's reproductive rights. One of the reasons for this is the lack of an independent forensic medical examination in Ukraine, as well as falsification of medical documentation.

Скаржниця звернулася до гінеколога для проведення аборту. При цьому лікар пошкодила скаржниці матку, сечовий міхур і кишечник. Скаржниця потребувала операції, щоб усунути пошкодження, і вона втратила здатність народжувати дітей. Під час судового засідання державна судово-медична експертиза встановила, що лікар не порушував медичних протоколів. Експерт також встановив, що дії лікаря не спричинили ушкодження органів скаржника, а нещасний випадок стався через особливості організму скаржника. Суд першої інстанції визнав лікаря невинним, враховуючи високу професійну кваліфікацію лікаря. Прокурор подав апеляцію, але пізніше відмовилася підтримувати обвинувачення через брак доказів провини лікаря. Цей випадок важливий, оскільки показує складність збору доказів у кримінальних справах щодо абортів та захисту репродуктивних прав жінок. Однією з причин цього є відсутність в Україні незалежної судово-медичної експертизи, а також фальсифікація медичної документації.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bracken Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne: Criminal Division (2014)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

This decision concerned the admissibility in a murder trial of expert evidence regarding the effects of family violence. The defendant argued self-defense, claiming that because of the deceased’s physical and verbal violence towards him, he reasonably believed that he had to kill her in order to prevent her from killing or seriously injuring the defendant or his father. The expert evidence in question was a general report on family violence, which considered (among other things) the cumulative psychological and social effects of family violence on an abused person. The Court found that the evidence was admissible on the basis of section 9AH of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). This section of the Crimes Act was enacted on the recommendation of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in 2004, to ensure that juries have the benefit of the current state of knowledge regarding family violence. The Commission expressed the view that, although community awareness about family violence was improving, there was “widespread misunderstanding about the nature and dynamics of abusive relationships and their impact.”

Lawrence v. The Queen Court of Appeal of Belize (2018)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Femicide

The appellant was convicted of the murder of his romantic partner of eight years and was sentenced to life in prison. On the night of the murder, the appellant first beat his partner in front of her three children. One of children called the police to report the beating, but the police failed to respond to the residence. Following the beating, the appellant left the house, but returned an hour later, broke into the house, and stabbed his partner to death. The appellant then drove his partner to the hospital where he was subsequently arrested. At the appellant' trial, testimony revealed that the appellant was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the killing and had a history of domestic violence. The first issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge gave adequate instructions on the potential for intoxication to be taken into account when deciding whether there was an intent to kill for the purposes of the appellant’s defense. The Court of Appeal found that such instructions given by the trial judge were adequate. The next issue decided by the Court of Appeal was whether new evidence from a forensic psychiatrist based on a single interview with the appellant regarding the appellant’s mental health necessitated a new trial. The Court of Appeal found the new evidence to be less than credible, but exercised discretion to substitute the original conviction of murder to a conviction of manslaughter and reduced the appellant’s sentence to 18 years. In reducing the sentence, the Court of Appeal began with the range of sentences for murder applicable a street fight (being 15 to 20 years), although acknowledged that the instant case differed in that it was a “vicious attack on an unarmed victim.” Taking into account appellant’s diagnosis of schizophrenia, the Court of Appeal began with a 15-year sentence and then added three years to reflect the aggravating factors of “the choice of weapon, the number of stab wounds, the presence of the children and the previous violence he inflicted on the deceased about an hour before the fatal incident” to arrive at the 18 year sentence ordered.

Lavallee v. Her Majesty the Queen Supreme Court of Canada (1990)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

The appellant, a battered woman, killed her abusive partner after an argument in which he threatened her life. In her defense, the appellant offered the expert testimony of a psychiatrist who testified regarding battered woman syndrome. The appellant was ultimately acquitted. The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, and the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the expert testimony of the psychiatrist should have come before the court and whether the judge’s instructions on said testimony were appropriate. The Supreme Court held that the testimony was admissible “where the expert has relevant knowledge or experience beyond that of the lay person,” as in the case of battered woman syndrome, and where the testimony is relevant to understanding the “reasonableness” of the defendant’s perspective.