"As societies build walls of separation between communities,
ICAAD works to remove each brick to illuminate our common humanity"

Report Reveals Concerns of Gender Bias in Courts in the Pacific Islands

December 10th, Honiara, Solomon Islands: Gender bias has affected sentencing outcomes in more than 50% of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) cases in Pacific Island Countries.

In a report released today on judicial sentencing practices of SGBV, including sexual assault and domestic violence cases, the International Center for Advocacy Against Discrimination (ICAAD) and DLA Piper revealed that the consideration of contentious factors, defined below, raised during the criminal case led to actual sentence reductions, undercutting the very function of the judicial system, which is to ensure accountability and justice.

A total of 908 sentencing records in SGBV cases, mainly between the years of 2000-2014 and involving seven PICs (Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, and Vanuatu) were analyzed to determine whether contentious factors were considered, and if so, how they directly impacted sentencing. There were 111 Domestic Violence (DV) cases, and 787 sexual assault (SA) cases reviewed.

Contentious factors, as defined by the authors of the report, are those that when used in mitigation by the court, discriminate against the victim on the basis of gender. Such discrimination may relate to gender stereotyping, rape myths, consideration of customary practices, or other factors that unjustly privilege the interests of the male perpetrator over the interest of the victim/ survivor.

Out of 90% of domestic violence cases where contentious factors were raised, 66% led to a reduction in sentencing.

For sexual assault cases, contentious factors were considered in 73% of cases and this led to a sentence reduction in 50% of the cases.

Importantly, where a combination of contentious factors were considered, perpetrators were four times more likely to receive no prison sentence than in cases where no contentious factors were considered.

Even more alarming was that 40% of victims were under 15 years of age, and 58% of the victims/survivors were under 18 years of age.

Hansdeep SI copy

Hansdeep Singh presents to senior legal officers from across the Pacific on analysis of SGBV cases at the 34th PILON Conference

Hansdeep Singh, Co-Founder of ICAAD, points out that male supremacy has embedded gender inequality in the PICs, within the very systems that should be providing avenues for justice, redress, and protection. “If one recognizes the almost insurmountable obstacles a woman must face to obtain even a modicum of accountability in SGBV cases, it is a cruel final act when the judiciary fails to recognize the true gravity of the crime and decides to reduce or suspend sentences based on gender stereotypes and customary (both formal and informal) forms of reconciliation,” he said.

“Though we have the utmost of respect for the importance of customary practices in the lives of Pacific Islanders, what we are advocating is that in a narrow subset of cases, domestic violence and sexual assault, that the court refrain from recognizing customary reconciliation as a form of sentence reduction.” Singh said that by doing so, the courts would acknowledge the inherent power imbalance and societal pressure that often accompanies such customary practices.

At a minimum, if courts do recognize customary reconciliation as a form of mitigation, “they should ensure that the victim/survivor clearly consented to being part of the process and that an apology and compensation is directed to the victim/survivor,” he said. Singh said that sentences must be imposed that are free from gender bias, which he says can be achieved by “magistrates/ judges becoming more cognizant of arguments or justifications rooted in gender stereotypes.”

on Gender bias in the judiciary

Emily Christie, Human Rights Lawyer, DLA Piper, presents on analysis of SGBV cases at the 34th PILON Conference

Human Rights lawyer at DLA Piper, Emily Christie expressed that “DLA Piper is proud to partner with ICAAD to deliver this report, which provides crucial evidence of the effect that gender discrimination has on sentencing decisions by courts. This report highlights the extent to which gender bias continues to prevent women from accessing justice on an equal basis with men.”

Solomon Island Presentation (2 of 3)

Senior Public Law Officers from numerous Pacific Island Countries, Australia, and New Zealand at the 34th PILON Conference

Commenting on the report, representatives of the Regional Rights Resource Team of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (RRRT) said, “Survivors are not well informed about the legal system and do not have resources to access the system. Gender biases means hardly any sympathy for their suffering, and conflicts between custom and formal laws result in ineffective penalties. All of these result in justice systems which indirectly fuel tolerance of gender based violence, and systematic legitimisation of the abuse of women and girls.”

ICAAD is committed to serving civil society and government to address the systemic nature of SGBV.

Special thanks to RRRT and CCF-Fiji for their input into the report as part of the working group.

Click here to read the report: An Analysis of Judicial Sentencing Practices in Sexual & Gender-Based Violence Cases in the Pacific Region.

 

#RaiseYourShield

Great talk! "Dr. Prabhjot Singh is on a mission to makes healthcare more accessible. His “a-ha moment” came as he attended the funeral of one of his patients where he saw the man in context of his life and community, rather than the bare facts included on his chart. Singh realized that this man’s death had been the result of the collective failure of many systems—education, mental health, neighborhood safety, job placement, veteran support. In Dying and Living in the Neighborhood, Singh insists that we must discard our top-down approach to the healthcare system and that regardless of our leadership, the solutions won’t come from our government. We must rebuild our system from the neighborhood up." ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL
ASSIMILATION OF SIKHISM, BUDDHISM,
AND JAINISM INTO HINDUISM

"Article 25, sub-clause 1 of the Indian Constitution guarantees
that “subject to public order, morality and health,
all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right to freely to profess, practice and propagate
religion.”38 However, its sub-clause 2 (B) and its corresponding
Explanation II is considered very controversial.
While Explanation I states that the wearing and
carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in
the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II in
sub-clause 2 (B) states, “Hindus shall be construed as
including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain
or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious
institutions shall be construed accordingly.”39 This
constitutional provision is very discriminatory, as it connotes
that even as a multi-faith state, India seems to be
concerned about the social welfare of only one religion
(Hinduism) and its religious institutions. The appended
Explanation II effectively groups Sikhs, Buddhists, and
Jains into Hinduism. Explanation II has also led to other
discriminatory laws against these religions, including
the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Marriage Act
(1955), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956),
and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956). These
laws are largely viewed to force legal assimilation of
these religions into Hinduism, rather than recognizing
them as distinct religious identities."
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook