threatening; keeping the person away from their children; not allowing the person to eat or sleep; and destroying or withholding items which are dear to the person so as to cause them emotional agony.
Importantly, the DV Act stipulates who is able to utilise the Act and to whom it applies. Any person who is suffering from domestic abuse is automatically eligible to be protected under the DV Act. As was abovementioned, a domestic violence offence may be committed against an associated person or a relevant child. The DV Act therefore states who may be considered an associated person and a relevant child. Section 3 states that a person is associated with another person if they: are married or were married to each other (‘spouses or former spouses’); live or have lived together as husband and wife (‘cohabitants or former cohabitants’); are or have engaged in a sexual relationship; lived or have lived in the same household in the past, (but not as tenants or employees unless there was sexual relations between them; are relatives; are currently or were engaged to be married (‘fiancée or fiancé’); and are the parent of a child or a person with parental responsibilities. Further, Section 2 describes a relevant child, and it includes any child living with or is expected to live with either the abuser or the abused; and any other child whose interests would have to be taken into consideration.
The DV Act has set out to protect the above-listed persons once they are the victim of or have been the victim of domestic abuse. In such circumstances, the victims or someone on their behalf may have recourse to the Court to apply for a protection order for them.
The issue of who can utilise the act came under scrutiny before the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of OO v BK and the Attorney General of Barbados [2023] CCJ 10 (AJ) BB.
In this case, the CCJ heard an appeal from the decision of the Barbados Court of Appeal to dismiss the appellant’s application, OO, for a protection order against the first respondent, BK.
Facts: The appellant and the first respondent were in a relationship for three years, during which time they lived together for almost two years and had a son. In November 2019, their relationship and cohabitation ended, but from February 2020 until May 2020, they were in a visiting intimate relationship. There was a violent incident between the two, following which the appellant sought a protection order for herself and her son against the first respondent. The Magistrate focused on whether the appellant had the status of a ‘former spouse’ under the Domestic Violence (Protection Orders) Act as amended by Act 2 of 2016. The appellant informed the Magistrate that she was neither a former spouse nor was she, at that time, in any type of relation with the first respondent. The Magistrate concluded that the appellant was not a former spouse, nor did she satisfy any of the other categories as contemplated by the Act, and as such, the legislation did not apply to her. The application was dismissed. The appellant appealed to the Court of
