Jennifer Koshan

Expert Testimony on Domestic Violence: A Discourse Analysis

Melissa Hamilton analyzes the impact of expert testimony about battered women’s syndrome (BWS) on appellate judges in Expert Testimony on Domestic Violence: A Discourse Analysis. The author considers sixty-three decisions of the appellate state courts in California that were rendered between 1996 and 2004 in cases where female defendants had been convicted of at least one criminal charge as a result of killing men who had battered them. She concludes that the expert testimony was highly influential. The topic, and Hamilton’s research, had excellent potential to inform our thinking on the use of expert testimony on BWS in the unusual research context of appellate courts. Unfortunately, this book does not meet that potential. Sex stereotypes of proper behaviour for women, gender bias in the laws of selfdefence, and myths and misconceptions about female victims of domestic violence have historically prevented battered women 1 from presenting their acts of killing their batterers as acts of self-defence. 2 BWS was developed to explain to judges and juries the common experiences of, and the impact of repeated abuse on, battered women in order to lend credibility to, and provide context for, the defendant’s explanation of her actions. 3 Drawing heavily on the work of Lenore Walker, 4

Specialised domestic violence courts in Canada and the United States: Key factors in prioritising safety for women and children

ABSTRACT This paper reviews the response of specialised domestic violence courts in Canada and the United States to contact disputes where there are allegations of domestic violence. It begins with a discussion of legal reforms responding to domestic violence in Canada and the United States, including the different types of DV courts and their rationales, key features, merits and drawbacks. Evaluations of Integrated DV courts in the United States and Canada are then reviewed. The research shows that although IDV courts hold more promise to deal with contact disputes given their inclusion of family law matters, there are few studies analysing the impact of IDV courts on these disputes, and some suggest these courts may actually increase contact and hence the potential for safety issues to arise. The final section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of IDV courts in relation to contact disputes, identifying the factors that make these specialised courts more or less successful in prioritising safety and minimising harm for women and children.

Redressing the Harms of Government (In)Action: A Section 7 versus Section 15 Charter Showdown

When considering the recent Charter claims of vulnerable individuals seeking to redress the harms of government action or inaction, there are two related trends in the appellate case law on sections 7 and 15 that merit attention.1 First, the Supreme Court has undertaken new approaches to equality rights under section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Charter, with a marked lack of success of claims in spite of (or perhaps because of) these approaches. The cases of Kapp,2 Withler,3 and Cunningham4 will be discussed in Part II as illustrations of this trend, along with cases where section 15 was given scant attention, such as Hutterian Brethren,5 AC v Manitoba,6 and Fraser.7 Second, there has been relative success of Charter claims under section 7 where there is strong evidence of harm to life, liberty or security of the person in circumstances where the government action was arbitrary, grossly disproportionate, or overbroad. In Part III, the cases of PHS Community Services,8 Adams,9 and Bedford10 will be shown to reflect this trend.11 These cases present an opportunity to discuss whether section 7 holds advantages over section 15 as a tool for disadvantaged persons challenging the harms of government (in)action, which will be addressed in Part IV. I conclude that while framing government harms as violations of life, liberty or security of the person may be a winning strategy for some Charter claimants, not all such harms can be presented in those terms, and the particular harms captured by section 15 must be given their due.