Thursday, The Telegram’s Tara Bradbury wrote about a domestic violence case in Corner Brook, and about how provincial court Judge Wayne Gorman had taken a particularly hard line in a spousal assault case.
“How many times can a man assault or threaten a former intimate female partner, while (as is often the case) bound by a court order not to have contact with her, until an exemplary sentence is imposed?” Gorman wrote. “In other words, when is enough, enough?”
The words in the verdict were welcomed by domestic violence survivors and their advocates — Michelle Greene, the executive director of Iris Kirby House, said she was thrilled by the judge’s plain speech. “I hope that (Gorman’s) way can permeate the justice system so that other judges can understand the absolute life-altering circumstances that domestic violence brings.”
I’m not as sure — because Judge Gorman has been sending this message for years.
Try this, from 2005: “It must be clearly understood that violence in intimate relationships is completely unacceptable, it will not be tolerated and it will result in lengthy periods of incarceration being imposed,” Gorman said. “This has been said many times by various courts, though the sentences imposed have not always been consistent with these words.”
Or this, in 2004, when Judge Gorman refused to accept a joint submission on sentencing in a spousal assault case: “Acceptance of it by the court would serve to perpetuate the myth that assaulting a spouse is not a serious matter, even if there is a history of such violence ... it would be inconsistent with (the court’s) duty to attempt to deter such conduct and it would constitute a clear message to the community that the court does not take its own orders seriously.”
Or this, Judge Gorman again, this time in 2003: “A court must understand that the orders it issues to protect women from jealous and possessive men are simply pieces of paper. They have no inherent strength or authority. … The number of women killed in this country by jealous and possessive men, who had been ordered by courts to refrain from contact with them, is tragic proof of the failure of the administration of justice to properly and adequately recognize the danger involved when violence occurs in intimate relationships, and proof of its failure to protect women from such men.”
Should other judges be following Gorman’s lead and making that kind of difference? Absolutely they should be.
In 2005, a story in The Telegram spelled out exactly where Gorman stood: “I am not so naive as to believe that the sentence I impose in this case will solve the problem of violence in intimate relationships. However, I do believe that through a consistent approach, this country’s courts can make a difference.”
And there are many, many more examples from Gorman’s verdicts.
Should other judges be following Gorman’s lead and making that kind of difference?
Absolutely they should be.
As I wrote in an editorial in 2004 about one of Gorman’s decisions, “It is a small step by one judge in one lonely courtroom. But it is the right step to take. After all, Gorman pointed out last November that peace bonds were regularly violated in spousal assault cases; in this latest case, one of the charges was, you guessed it, a breach of a peace bond. It was the accused’s 13th conviction for breaching peace bonds or court orders. Gorman is right: attitudes and behaviour surely aren’t changed by one single court verdict. But it’s a start, and one that’s long overdue.”
That editorial was written 15 years, nine months and 13 days ago.
Frankly, few judges have shown any interest in following, let alone breaking their own new ground.
It’s hard to even be hopeful.
Russell Wangersky’s column appears in SaltWire newspapers and websites across Atlantic Canada. He can be reached at russell.wangersky@thetelegram.com — Twitter: @wangersky.
